9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the related as well as un related buyers and the appellant have applied the transaction value which is charged to the un related buyers also in respect of clearances made to the related parties. In this case , the valuation of the goods cleared to the related buyers was correctly made by applying the transaction value at which the goods are sold to unrelated buyers. This issue has been considered by the larger bench of the CESTAT in the case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI-LB] where it was held that ' the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 5,63,540/-, on the ground that the value of supplies made to related parties is governed under Rule 8 of Central Excuse Valuation Rules, 2000, is correct or otherwise. (iii) Whether the personal penalty imposed under Rule 26 on Shri Pragnesh Zariwala, Ishwar S Zariwala and Dharmesh H Zariwala is correct or otherwise. 1.2 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have cleared the goods partly to unrelated buyers and partly to related buyers. In case of both the clearances, the appellant have paid duty on transaction value. The case of the department is that for the clearance of excisable goods made to related parties, the valuation should be done under Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri.- Ahmd.) 3. Shri A.K Samota, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that as regard the demand of Rs. 58,129/- on the charge of clandestine removal , the appellant have not pressed effectively in this regard. Therefore, without going into the detail, we uphold the demand of Rs. 58,129/-. 4.1 As regard the demand of differential duty on the issue of valuation, we find that there is no dispute on the fact that the goods are sold to the related as well as un related buyers and the appellant have applied the transaction value which is charged to the un related buyers also in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ian Drug Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, wherein the Court held that Rule 8 applies in a situation where goods are not sold but are cleared exclusively to be used in consumption or for manufacture of other articles. We also agree with the contention of the assessee that Rule 8 will apply only in two situations, (a) where the goods are consumed by him in the same factory (captive consumption) or (b) where such goods are transferred to another factory for consumption in the manufacture of other articles on behalf of the assessee. In this case, it is not the case of the revenue that the goods were transferred to other units for manufacture of other articles on behalf of the assessee/appellant, i.e. the Dolvi Unit. We agree with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute, there was no need to look further and regardless of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 8, the assessable value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. 8 . The conclusion that we are drawing in the present case would lead to determination of a value which, in our view, will not only be reasonable but also consistent with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. We would, at this stage, draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the assessee s own case, as reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 561, wherein the Court applied The Gunapradhan Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10 . The papers are now returned to the referral Bench for passing orders on the appeal. 4.3 In view of the above judgment and various other judgments cited by the appellant, we are of the view that valuation of goods cleared to related parties which is based on the transaction value at which the goods are sold applied to unrelated buyers is absolutely correct. Therefore, in this regard demand is not sustainable. Hence, duty demand of Rs. 5,36,540/- is set aside. 4.4 As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
