Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 49 - AT - Central ExciseDetermination of price - interconnected undertakings - Rule 11, 9 and 10 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that: - The undisputed factual position is that SFL cleared the goods both to related persons (interconnected undertakings) as well as to independent buyers. This being so, the provisions of Rule 9 which prescribes that when an assessee so arranges that the excisable goods are not sold by assessees except to or through a person who is related in the manner specified .. value of the goods shall be the normal transaction value at which these are sold by the related person at the time of removal, to buyers (not being related person); or .. , are not attracted, in the light of the apex court s decision in CCE Vs Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. [2004 -TMI - 53600 - CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE]. The apex court accepted the contention that duty is to be paid on the price at which the goods are sold to independent third parties. Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the demands confirmed against and penalties imposed upon the assessees and allow Appeal Nos.E/711 & 712/2005 and E/698/2007 on merits, without going into the argument raised in these appeals that the demands are barred by limitation. As a consequence, Appeal Nos.E/755 & 1056/2005 and E/865 & 866/2006 challenging the dropping of the demands on the ground that mutuality interest is not required to be established between the interconnected undertakings in order to invoke the provisions of Rule 9 and 10 of the Valuation Rules, are rejected.
|