9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s LB in Ispat Industries (2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) and the above Tribunal decision in Gangotri Electrocastings (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Further, we find that the Adjudicating Authority in his order No.200/2013 dt.28.11.13 has allowed the appeal of assessee for the subsequent period for 2003 to 7.7.2004, and held that Rule 8 is not applicable. - Appeal Nos. E/418/2005 & E/26/2006 - Final Order No.40186-40187/2016 - Dated:- 2-2-2016 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Karthika, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Veerabadra Reddy, AC (AR) ORDER PER R. PERIASAMI Both the appeals are taken up together as the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed goods were cleared on DTA sale to the unrelated buyers and the goods cleared to their partnership firm were cleared at higher price than what was cleared to unrelated buyers. She drew our attention to the invoices, worksheet, placed at pages 80, 81, 82, 82A. She produced copy of Commissioner (Appeals) OIA No.200/2013 dt. 28.11.2013 passed in their own case for the subsequent period wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal and the department accepted the said order and there is no dispute from 2013 onwards and the department accepted their transaction value on the goods cleared to their partnership firms. She relied the following case laws :- (1) Ultra Refriegerators Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi-2004 (170) ELT 341 (Tri.-De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of value as per CAS-4 formula and as per CAS-4 (para 5.16) interest element is not to be included. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the short issue before Tribunal is whether value for the excisable goods partly cleared to the sister unit/partnership firm is to be determined as per Rule 8 or as per transaction value under Section 4(1) (a) of CER. We find that there is no dispute on the fact that both in the OIOs and in the impugned orders, appellants are manufacturer of cotton yarn and more than 50% of the finished goods were cleared to unrelated buyers. In the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied Board's circular No.643/34/2002-CX dt. 1.7.2002 and held that value to be determined under Rule 8 as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partly to independent buyers? Clarification : There is no specific rule covering such a contingency. Transaction value in respect of sales to unrelated buyers cannot be adopted for sales to related buyers since as per section 4 (1) transaction value is to be determined for each removal. For sales to unrelated buyers valuation will be done as per section 4(1)(a) and for sale of the same goods to related buyers recourse will have to be taken to the residuary rule 11 read with rule 9 (or 10). Rule 9 cannot be applied in such cases directly since it covers only those cases where all the sales are to be related to buyers only. As seen from the above, the Board has categorically clarified that in case of captive consumption, the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it in such a way as to make it in accordance with the main object that is contained in Section 14 of the Customs Act. It may be that in isolation Rule 9(2) conveys some other meaning, but when it is read along with Section 14 of the Act, it must be given a meaning which is in accordance with the object of Section 14. The object of Section 14 is primary whereas the conditions in Rule 9 (2) are the accessories . The accessory must, therefore, serve the primary . 9. In view of what we have observed above, we answer the reference in the following terms : (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
