9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice itself it has been stated that the noticee has been clearing the finished goods at lesser (assessable) value to M/s Gera Enterprises as compared to other customers. Once this fact is admitted then applying Rule 9 is not legally sustainable in view of the larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] . Besides, this Tribunal in the case of SUDERSHAN CASTINGS PVT. LTD., SUDERSHAN STEELS PVT. LTD., TRIKUTA STEEL ROLLING MILLS, ROMESH CHANDER GUPTA, SHRI. NARINDER KUMAR GUPTA, MG. DIRECTOR OF SHRI SUDERSHAN KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS CCE, JAMMU. [ 2017 (5) TMI 1816 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] held that when the goods are sold to related person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant as the same is a proprietary concern owned by Shri M.L. Gera who is the father of Shri Raj Kumar Gera i.e. the proprietor of the appellant. The show cause notice proposed recovery of short levy of Rs. 2,44,191/- on the basis of the value of clearances of Rs. 1,81,57,445/- during the period March, 2006 to 15.03.2011 for violation of provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Rule 8 and 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The said Show Cause notice was issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. After following due process, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand alongwith interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncludes on the basis of an incorrect appreciation of provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He further submits that in Para 2 of show cause notice, it is alleged that the Noticee had been clearing the finished goods at lesser (assessable) value to M/s Gera Enterprises as compared to other customers. He further submits that the fact that the appellant cleared the impugned goods to M/s Gera Enterprises, as well to others is not in dispute. He further submits that since in the instant case, the impugned goods, as manufactured by the noticee, are sold by him in the open market to un-related person as well as the related persons, the provisions of Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000 are not attracted here. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers. 8. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudershan Castings Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. CCE-Jammu vide Final Order No. 60965-60970 of 2017 dated 29th May 2017 wherein the identical issue was involved and this Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying upon the larger bench decision in the case of Espat Industries (supra). 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. Ld. DR also cited the following decisions in their supports:- (i) CCE ST- Rohtak vs. Merino Panel Product Ltd. 2023 (383) ELT 129 (S.C.) (ii) M/s Birdi Steels vs. Commissioner of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
