9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 has come up before the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore V/s Surya Roshni Ltd [2016 (10) TMI 1137 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] in which Tribunal has held that the treatment for the period prior to amendment to Rule 8 is to be the same as for the treatment after such amendment - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/50163/2018-EX (DB) - Final Order No. 51139/2018 - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent Per : V. Padmanabhan 1. The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 257/2017-18 dated 29/09/2017. 2. The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment, the duty paid by the appellant on the basis of the above determination was in order. 5. With reference to the period prior to 01/12/2013 he submitted that the duty should be determined on the same basis as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Ultra Tech Cement V/s CCE, Indore, Final Order No. 57753-57755/2017 dated 08/11/2017. 6. The Ld DR argued that for the period before and after the amendment to Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the demand made is fully justified. He specifically pointed out that determination of value at the rate of 110 per cent of cost of production in terms of Rule 8 cannot be made applicable since the cement in the present case was not used for production or manufacture of other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arified that as per the Boards 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 that in case of transfer of components, they are not including selling expenses, marketing expenses, distribution expenses etc. which are the main ingredients of pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her 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 Honble 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. 4. Considering the above settled position of law, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. By following the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
