9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e placed in the case of M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Limited Versus CCE, Indore [2017 (10) TMI 191 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that 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 ascertained as per the CAS-4. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate, it is also submitted that in view of the settled legal position that where transaction value is available for the goods, the valuation under Rule(8) and (9) of Central Excise Valuation Rule 2000 is not invocable as held in the following cases; (A) 2017 (355)EKT 568 Jindal Steel & Power Vs Cce Jaipur (Tri) (del.) (B) 2017 (354)ELT 551 CCE Vs Ocean Metals (Tri. Chennai) (C) 2016 (335) ELT 91 Steel Authority vs CCE Raipur (Tri. Del) 3. On the other hand the Learned DR has relied upon the following case laws: Sr. No. Particulars Pg. No. 1. CCE, Indore vs. Surya Roshini Ltd., Final Order No. 54129/2016 dated 18.10.2016 2. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE, Indore, Final Order No. 55986/2017 dated 11.08.17 3. Ultratech Cement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity recorded as below: The assessee in their 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 thereform. The reason for price difference in case of parts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the rule addressed the issue clarified already vide Board circular dated 011.07.2002. In other words, it is apparent that the provisions for application 110%/115% of cost of production to be adopted for valuation as all along been the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inCCE, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.-2-12(283) ELT 161(SC) held that a bare reading of Valuation Rules does not give any indication of exicable goods had to follow the rules sequentially. The rules only provides for arriving at the assessble value under different contingencies " In the above mentioned case, the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench has been distinguished in the light of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiat India Pvt. Limited( supra). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
