Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1099 - AT - Central ExciseSales made to its subsidiary unit M/s RAL - stock transfer or sales on commercial basis - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - The Department had confirmed the demand against the appellant on the ground that there was no stock transfer of goods to the sister unit M/s RAL and the goods were sold on purely commercial considerations; thus, the valuation provisions contained in Section 4 (1)(a) ibid will be applicable for determination of the transaction value, as against the claim of appellant for the valuation as provided under Rule 8 ibid - Held that: - it is an admitted fact on record that goods were sold by the appellant to M/s. RAL at the price at which it had sold similar goods to other buyers. Since there was no stock transfer of goods for consumption by the appellant or on its behalf by others in the manufacture of other articles, the situation is not governed under the provisions of Rule 8 ibid and the valuation provisions contained in Section 4 ibid will be applicable for determination of the transaction value for the purpose of charging duty of excise. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - adoption of Rule 8 for determination of value by the appellant can be said to be on entertaining a reasonable doubt, for which extended period of limitation, in our opinion, cannot be invoked. There is no element of mensrea involved in the case - The particulars, which formed basis of demand were all maintained and recorded in books of the appellant and were furnished to the Department - the pre-conditions for applicability of the proviso to Section 11A ibid cannot be said to be existing - extended period not invoked. Appeal allowed in favour of the appellant on the ground of limitation alone.
|