9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 - Final Order Nos. 57753-57755/2017 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant Sh R. K. Mishra, AR for the respondent ORDER Per : Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order-in-original No.BSP/EXCUS/000.CN/024/2015 and 51/COMMR/GWL/CEX/2015 dated 31.03.2015 and 27.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs Service tax, Bilaspur, Gwalior (Indore). The period of dispute is March 2011 to November, 2013. 2. In all the appeals, the issue is identical pertaining to valuation of clinker manufactured and stock transferred to the sister unit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessable value is 115% of the cost of production of the goods (the same was reduced to 110%). He also submits that clarification has come from the Board after the amendment in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules vide Circular No. 975/9/2013-CX dated 25.11.2013 where it is clearly mentioned that the Rule 8 is apply even stock transfer is made to the sister concern and partly sold to the open market. Lastly, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, ld. AR relied in the assessee own case Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhavnagar- 2013 (295) ELT 470 (Tri.) which was passed in view of the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad -2007 (209) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r letter dated 28.05.2011 addressed to the Additional Commissioner as also in a letter dated 07.07.2011 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) Indore clarified that as per the Board s Circular No.634/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2000 and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, they have transferred the goods to their sister concern correctly as per 110% of the cost of production on the basis of CAS-4 Certificate. They have also referred to the case laws in their support. The main point involved in this case is that the party is not transferring on payment of duty the final product from factory to their sister concern and not for sale therefrom. The reason for price difference in case of parts of the final product as explained by the party is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given in the said rule. The Board further stated that these amendments in the rules addressed the issues clarified already vide Board Circular dated 01.07.2002. In other words, it is apparent that the provisions for application of 110% / 115% of cost of production to be adopted for valuation as all along been the same. The Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) held that a bare reading of Valuation Rules does not give any indication that the adjudicating authority while determining the value for duty of excisable goods had to follow the rules sequentially. The rules only provides for arriving at the assessable value under different contingencies. 9. In the abovementioned case, the ratio l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
