Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 979 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of differential duty - valuation - related partly - Penalty u/s 11AC - respondent did not pay correct Central Excise duty in respect of the supplies of sanitary ware products made to interconnected undertaking by the original authority - Held that:- Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has considered the provisions of law such as Section 4(3)(b), Rule 10 of Valuation Rules, the Circular issued by CBEC F.No.354/81/2000-TRU dated 30.6.2000 and the Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 1.7.2002 and came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that appellants were supplying to independent suppliers also and as required under Rule it could not be said that appellants were not selling their product except or through an interconnected undertaking or a related person, the price at which goods are sold to RAK, Mumbai, cannot be rejected in terms of Rule10(b) of Valuation Rules. Therefore he came to the conclusion that in the absence of any evidence to show that RAK Mumbai was a related person, when there were independent sales to other buyers, as per provisions of Rule 10(b), the sales to RAK, Mumbai has to be considered as a sale to an unrelated person. In the appeal memorandum as well as the submissions of learned AR, what is being stated is that this order is not correct and the decision of the appellate authority taking a view that valuation should be done on the Rule 10(b) is not correct and Rule 11 should have been applied - two parties to the transactions in this case can be considered as related persons and in the absence of any evidence to show the same in the appeal memorandum or in the submissions of the learned AR, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the learned Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.
|