Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 785 - CESTAT CHENNAIValuation - interested party transaction - favoured sale to related parties - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Dagger Die Cutting Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II [2010 (4) TMI 304 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - We don't find anything different in facts of both the cases i.e., case before this Tribunal and the reported judgment in the case of Dagger Die Cutting - It appears that the show cause notice dated 19.05.2000 gave rise to the proceeding of 1995-2000 which is similar to the allegation in the show-cause notice dated 20.03.2001 related to the present appeal. When the matter has reached finality before Hon'ble High court of Madras in the reported Judgment, the Tribunal being subordinate, although a final court of fact, is bound to follow the Judgement of higher court as Judicial discipline. There is no factual difference brought out by the Revenue in the present case. Finding no difference and noticing that adjudication under appeal was made on the self-same allegations, the adjudication made is not sustainable. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed holding that duty demand should be confined to the principles of normal valuation in absence of any related party transaction. At this stage, learned departmental representative says that the adjudicating authority shall verify whether the duty in the normal circumstances is paid or not i.e., under section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To make it clear that what that is normally payable is to be realized and there is no difference to such proposition of law - Learned counsel prays that consequential relief, if any, may be admissible in accordance with law. Such prayer is allowed.
|