9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 4(3)(b)(i) of CEA, 1944, valuation it goes to Rule 10 (b) of the Valuation Rules. That sub-clause of Rule 10 requires valuation of goods under Section 4 (1) of CEA, 1944. Accordingly, the sequential step is to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Ujagar prints Etc.Etc. Vs. UOI & Others [1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Such manner of valuation is not questioned by Revenue. Therefore, there is no need to go further since the assesse says that Ujagar prints procedure has been followed and Revenue totally ignored such aspect to be examined. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot make a new case to create jurisdiction for it to decide the issue not before it. Since the case is covered by Section 4 (3) (b) (i), the present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 2000. According to appellant when an assessee clears goods to the persons named in sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of Clause 5 of Sub-section 3 of Section 4 of CEA, 1944, that attracts peculiar valuation methodology instead of the normal valuation formula applicable under Section 4. The case of the appellant falls under Section 4 (3) (b) (i) of CEA, 1944 when para-2 of the finding in the adjudication order is read. It being related to the principal manufacturer, as interconnected undertaking, the appellant is out of the scope of Rule 9 of above Valuation Rules. Reading of Rule 9 specifically throws light that once an assesse does not fall under the basic provision of Rule 9, it shall not at all visits proviso thereunder. Proviso being subord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interconnected undertaking and covered by Section 4 (3) (b) (i) of the CEA, 1944. Such a case fundamentally goes out of the scope of Rule 9 of Valuation Rules because that rule does not cover the interconnected undertaking within its fold. Therefore, there is no necessity to examine even applicability of the proviso in the present case. 8. Since the case falls under Section 4 (3) (b) (i) of CEA, 1944, valuation it goes to Rule 10 (b) of the Valuation Rules. That sub-clause of Rule 10 requires valuation of goods under Section 4 (1) of CEA, 1944. Accordingly, the sequential step is to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Ujagar prints (supra). Such manner of valuation is not questioned by Revenue. Therefore, there is no need to go fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
