Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1949 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - chassis of commercial vehicles cleared by the appellant to body builders - deduction of the discount from the Ex-Factory Dealer Net Price - Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellant has adopted the comparable price of the same goods sold to independent customers which is net of discount - HELD THAT:- Once the sale price of the chassis to independent buyers (net of discount) was available and satisfied all the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the same price can be adopted for valuing the chassis cleared to the body builders. The Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that when sale price to independent customer is available, the same price can be adopted for valuation of the goods stock transferred. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various decisions has held that once comparable price of the similar goods to unrelated buyer is available the same can be adopted for valuation of the goods cleared for captive use - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH VERSUS BHARTI TELECOM. LTD. [2008 (4) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT]. Scope of SCN - HELD THAT:- The Show Cause Notices propose to demand duty by applying the provisions of Rule 7 or 8 of the Valuation Rules. However, the demand proposed in the notice and confirmed by the impugned order is on totally different grounds i. e. by taking into account the amounts of discounts and demanding duty thereon. The provision of Rule 7 or 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules does not empower the department to determine duty liability in this manner. Thus, the entire case made out by the department, is totally erroneous and does not have the support of any provisions of law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|