9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o independent buyers. However, a small portion of the goods manufactured are also sold by the appellant to M/s. Caldyne Automatics Ltd. which is a subsidiary unit of the appellant. The dispute during the period April, 2001 to December, 2006 relates to the valuation of goods cleared by the appellant to its subsidiary. The duty on such clearances was paid on the basis of mutually agreed price. The department was of the view that since the subsidiary has further sold the batteries at higher price, excise duty was required to be paid at the price at which said subsidiary is selling the goods to independent buyers. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued. The demand of central excise duty has been confirmed along with interest and penalty. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn has sold the goods at higher price, but duty has been paid at the time of clearance at mutually agreed price which is claimed to be the price at which goods are sold to independent persons. The view of the department is that central excise duty is required to be paid, in terms of Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 at the price at which the subsidiary sells the goods to independent buyers. In this connection we note that the applicability of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and the circumstances in which it can be applied have been clarified by the CBEC vide their Circular dated 01.07.2012, in question No.12 which is reproduced here for ready reference. 12. How will valuation be done when godos are sold parly to rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the charge of undervaluation is not sustainable against the appellant." 8. As discussed above in principle we find there is no justification for insistance on payment of duty at the price at which the goods are sold by the related persons. It is the submission of the appellant that the mutually agreed price at which goods are sold to the related persons is at par with the price of such goods sold to independent buyers. We also note that related details also have been submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. But we find from the impugned order that this aspect has not been discussed by him. Hence, we direct the Adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
