9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of credit availed by them on those inputs. Proper invoice as per provisions of Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules were also issued. RT-12 returns were being filed enclosing therewith other related documents. While so, show cause notice dated 7-3-2002 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173C, 173F, 173G of the Central Excise Rules and Section 4 of Central Excise Act read with Rules 7 9 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and evaded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,69,453/-. The demand was made on the allegation that the appellants have removed various inputs to their sister unit after debiting the Cenvat Credit availed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1944, or under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 or 2002? Where inputs or capital goods, on which credit has been taken, are removed as such on sale, there should be no problem in Ascertaining the transaction value by application of Section 4(l)(a) of the Valuation Rules, [provided tariff values have not been fixed for the inputs or they are not assessed under Section 4A on the basis of MRP]. There may be cases where the inputs or capital goods are removed as such to a sister unit of the same company and where no sale is involved. It may be noticed that sub-rule (1C) of Rule 57AB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 (now 2002), talk of determination of value for "su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the rates fixed in Setter F. No. 495/16/93-Cus.VI, dated 26-5-1993, issued on the Customs side". 5. We heard the learned SDR who submitted that the orders impugned are not liable to be interfered with. 6. On going through the relevant portion of the Circular mentioned above, we find the appellant had followed the procedure referred therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to the abovementioned circular but without assigning any reason he has rejected the contention taken by the appellant. Once the appellant has followed the circular issued by the Board and his action is not against any statutory provision, we find no reason to deny the benefit to the assessee. In the present case the assessee has adopted the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
