9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said process were carried out by their Garauli unit - it is established that the goods cleared by the appellant to their Garauli unit was not fully finished. Therefore, the valuation could not have been done under Rule 6(c)(iii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and/or Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1445/06 - A/85480/17/EB - Dated:- 23-1-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) None for the appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Hub front wheel for Zen and Drive Flange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, the basis of the department s case that the goods cleared by the appellant are not semi-finished does not sustain. The appellant also submitted that the Garauli unit is also paying excise duty on the sale price of the same goods after carrying out certain process and whatever duty was ought to be paid by the appellant is available as modvat credit by the Garauli unit. Therefore, for these reasons also demand should not sustain. The appellant also submitted that since Garauli unit cleared the same goods on payment of duty and availed the credit on the duty paid by the appellant s Pune unit, there is no question of suppression of fact. Therefore the demand is hit by limitation also. They relied upon the judgment of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be relied upon. The record maintained by the appellant is not under dispute. Therefore, it is established that the goods cleared by the appellant to their Garauli unit was not fully finished. Therefore, the valuation could not have been done under Rule 6(c)(iii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 and/or Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. It is also noted that the goods manufactured by the appellant is exclusively meant for Maruti vehicles and subsequently sold by Garauli unit of the appellant on payment of duty on the sale value of the goods. Therefore, even if it is assumed there is some short payment at appellant s factory the same was made good since the duty was finally paid by Garauli unit on sale price of the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
