9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clared the assessable value of M.S. Ingots manufactured by them and cleared to their own re-rolling mill at the rate of Rs. 8,500/-, Rs. 9,150/- and Rs. 9,200/- per MT for the period from 1-3-94 vide their declaration in Annexure IIB under Rule 173C of the CER, 1944. The respondents had also cleared certain quantity of M.S. Ingots to certain outside buyers at the rate of Rs. 9,300/- per M.T. during the said period. Since the said goods are captively consumed and no sale is involved, the valuation of the goods was arrived at as per Rule 68(1) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 taking the value of the same goods cleared to outside buyers, i.e. Rs. 9,300/- Per MT, as comparable goods and a Show Cause Notice demanding the differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. There may be cases where the goods are sold at different prices to different classes of buyers. In such cases, the price charged to each class of buyer shall be deemed to be the normal price." They further stated that their case is governed by Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules and not sub-rule (1) as alleged in the notice. In fine they stated that, the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy while finalising the provisional assessment of the same goods for the period 1993-94 with the concurrence of the Assistant Director (Costs) adopted the value as per cost construction method only and hence the demand is not sustainable and requested to drop the proceedings. They also requested an opportunity t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 while determining the value of comparable goods manufactured by the assessee. They have distinguished the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI v. MRF - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) on the ground that MRF's case deals with adoption of different normal price to different class of buyers whereas in the present matter, it deals with the value for captive consumption of the consumed goods which were sold outside the factory at a higher price. 6. We have heard ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran for appellant-Revenue and Shri Sundernathan, ld. Advocate for the respondent. 7. Ld. DR submitted that on the same issue the Tribunal has held that the price of the goods sold in the market is required to be ado ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of their factory to another outside buyer by adopting the higher price ranging from Rs. 9,150/- to Rs. 9,300/- per MT. The Asstt. Commissioner has given a categorical finding as to how the said details were not furnished and hence the assessments were required to be reopened to demand duty. The assessments have been reopened within six months from the date of receipt of finalisation and, therefore, the demands are sustainable. The Counsel's plea that demands cannot be raised is not sustainable in the light of the judgment cited by DR. We also find that this issue on merit is covered against the assessee and the Tribunal in the cited judgments referred to by DR wherein it has clearly held that the price of the goods which are sold are requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
