2017 (10) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sh. S. K. Bansal, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No.66-67/Commr/CEX/IND/2014 dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of FRP rods, indo flex and rip cord binder falling under chapter heading 39, 70 a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l has been filed by the appellant. 3. With this background, we heard Sh. Rohit Choudhary, ld. Advocate for the appellant & Sh. S. K. Bansal, ld. AR for the respondent. 4. Ld. Counsel advanced the argument that clearance of goods from Pithampur unit to Ambarnath unit does not involve any sale but has been cleared for undertaking further manufacture of FRP rods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules. Sin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds have been cleared from Pithampur unit to Ambarnath unit. Both units are owned by the same company and there is no sale involved in the transfer of goods from one unit to another. Under such circumstances, Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules specifically prescribes that the valuation for purpose of charging of excise duty is required to be made on the basis of 110% of the value of the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X