Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (1) TMI 1645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y on the ground of coverage by the decision of the Tribunal in re Vijay Fire Protection Systems Ltd [ 2004 (4) TMI 146 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ] which has been set aside, after detailed consideration by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in re UTC Fire and Security India Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT ]. In UTC Fire and Security India Ltd, it has been held that The only mistake which is committed by the Commissioner is to refer to Rule 6(b) inasmuch as in the present case, the goods are not consumed by the appellant/ assessee itself but used in the turnkey projects/contracts meant for the third party. Thus, it was Rule 7 which should have been referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) as none of the preceding rules would apply. To put it otherwis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upheld as the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur v. Vijay Fire Protection Systems Ltd [2004 (170) ELT 20 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. 3. According to Learned Counsel, the decision of the Tribunal in re Vijay Fire Protection Systems Ltd is no longer good law as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UTC Fire and Security India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2015 (319) ELT 591 (SC)] had taken note of that without approving it. 4. In re UTC Fire and Security India Ltd, it has been held that '12. Thus, one thing is clear. It is not a case where Section 4(1)(a) of the Act is applicable. That is the common case of the parties. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, normal prices of the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods shall be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any other time nearest to the time of the removal of goods under assessment, subject, if necessary, to such adjustment on account of the different in the dates of delivery of such goods and of the excisable goods under assessment, as may appear reasonable to the proper officer. RULE 6. If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under rule 4 or rule 5, and - (a) where such goods are sold by the assessee in retail, the value shall be based on the retail price of such goods reduced by such amount as is necessary and reasonable in the opinion of the proper officer to arrive at the price at which the assessee would have sold su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n who sells such goods in retail, in the manner specified in clause (a) of this rule; (ii) in a case where a related person does not sell the goods but uses or consumes such goods in the production or manufacture of other articles, in the manner specified in clause (b) of this rule; (iii) in a case where a related person sells the goods in the course of wholesale trade to buyers, other than dealers and related persons, and the class to which such buyers belong is known at the time of removal, on the basis of the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold by the related person to such class of buyers. RULE 7. If the value of excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the proper officer shall determine the value o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ara 11 of the said order.' 5. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in Balajee Electro Steel Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi [2007 (219) ELT 563 (Tri.-Kolkata)]. We find that the issue in that dispute pertained to the valuation of goods captively consumed for the period after Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 came into existence. This is an aspect that was not disputed before the first appellate authority and is not in dispute here. 6. The entire dispute pertains to the period prior to 1st July 2000 and the applicability of rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The appeal of the appellant herein before the first appellate a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates