9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, AC Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order 22.04.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 29 and 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 24.02.2010 has upheld the adjudged demands confirmed on the appellant, holding that valuation provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Circular No. 643/34/2002 - Cx. Dated 01.07.2002 have not been complied with by the appellant. It has further been held that the appellant had adopted the wrong practice of payment of duty on the basis of selling price of goods, inste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of appellant itself, to state that the provisions of Rule 8 ibid cannot be applied for determination of the transaction value, when the same were sold to the independent buyers. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the issue arising out of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on transaction value. As per Section 4(1)(a), the duty is chargeable on the transaction value. However, as per Section 4(ii)(b) and rules made thereunder, if the price is not ascertainable under Section 4(1)(a) then the value should be arrived at on the basis of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In the present case, in respect of the same goods since part of the said goods was sold independen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1944. 5. Following the ratio of the aforesaid Larger Bench's decision, the valuation adopted by the respondent i.e. the transaction value of the same goods sold to independent buyer is a correct value. Hence, the valuation under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and Revenue's appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
