9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI-LB] - The issue before the Larger Bench was whether the assessable value in respect of goods which are transferred to any plant/unit of the same assessee, is required to be determined as per Rule 4 or Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, in case where some goods were also sold to independent buyers. The Larger Bench have held in the circumstances and facts as follows:- (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... November 2001 to September 2010. 2. During the period November 2001 to February 2009 appellant had both sales to independent buyers and also goods removed to their sister concern. We find that, under such facts and circumstances, the issue is wholely covered by ruling of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd., Vs CCE [2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri LB)]. 3. The issue before the Larger Bench was whether the assessable value in respect of goods which are transferred to any plant/unit of the same assessee, is required to be determined as per Rule 4 or Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, in case where some goods were also sold to independent buyers. 4. Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this Tribunal in Ispat Industries Ltd., (supra). 7. For the period March 2009 to September 2010 admittedly there are no independent sales and all the removal of the goods are to the sister unit. Learned Counsel mentions that for this period, they have not disputed the differential duty demanded by Revenue and they have deposited the same with applicable interest. For this period, Learned Counsel states that the issue is of wholely interpretational in nature, thus penalty is not imposable. 8. Learned AR for Revenue relies on the impugned order and also relies on the Board Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2002. He further relies on the Circular and the Notification No. 14/2003-CE (NT) dated 22.11.2013 (which became effecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
