2018 (12) TMI 1755

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs. CCE, Raigad [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ], this Bench of the Tribunal has held that the method of valuation adopted by the appellant is correct. There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON'BLE MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Punkit Shah, C.A. for the Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, 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 manu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ote unit (Ratnagiri) of the appellant had cleared products namely "Chloropyriphos 20" and "Hamla" to independent buyers and to toll packers for further conversion and that the excise duty on the goods cleared to the toll packers was paid adopting comparable sale price of the goods sold to the independent buyers. Thus, he submits that adoption of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 by the department for computation of the additional duty liability cannot be sustained. In this context, the learned Advocate has relied upon the Final Order No. A/86011/2018 dated 15.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal 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 sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he said goods is available. Therefore, the said transaction value will prevail over the value in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. This issue has been considered by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd (supra), wherein the Larger Bench has observed that Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 in any case to be preferred over provisions of Rule 8 ibid, not only for the reason that they occurred first in sequential of Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both rules are applicable, application of Rule 4 ibid will lead to 4 determination of value, which will be more consistent and in accordance with parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X