Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 209 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - revision of the value of goods supplied by the respondents to their own subsidiary - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that: - The issue regarding the manner of assessment when part of the goods are sold to independent buyers and part are consumed or captively sold to related persons has been dealt with the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers and the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The correct method of assessment in these circumstances would be adoption of the price at which the said goods were sold to independent buyers. In the instant case, the demand has been raised on the transaction value for sale to related buyers. The law of the land takes precedence over the circulars issued by the CBEC and also any letters issued by the Revenue by way of audit or by show-cause notice. CBEC Circular itself regarded the transaction value as irrelevant for the purpose of arriving at assessable value for sales to related persons. Time limitation - Held that: - the method of valuation was adopted by the appellants on the directions of audit. The CBEC Circular dated 01/07/2002 also prescribed the same method of assessment. Thus, not only the facts were known to revenue but the appellants acted on the direction of revenue. In these circumstances, the invocation of extended period is also not justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|