Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 115 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of goods - Clearance of goods to sister concerns - Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that:- Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, which has been invoked in the show cause notice for determination of value is not the appropriate rule, especially when the supplies made to the sister concerns formed only a small portion of total supplies effected by the appellant manufacturer. In Ispat Industries Ltd. - [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], a question arose before the Tribunal whether the assessable value in respect of goods which were transferred to another plant of the same assessee is required to be determined as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 or as per the Rule 8 of the said Rules, in a case where the same goods were also sold to independent buyers. The Larger Bench held that Rule 8 would apply only in a case where the entire production of a particular commodity is captively consumed. - valuation in the instant case has to be done in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and not under Rule 8 as proposed in the show cause notice - Decided in favor of assessee. Ascertainment of value at nearest time - Held that:- If more than one price to independent buyer is available, the lowest of such price should be taken as the basis. Inasmuch as the appellant was not put to notice about the basis for determination - matter remanded back to adjudicating authority for this purpose. Penalty u/s 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Inasmuch as the entire show cause notice has been issued consequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of IFGL Refractories case (2005 (8) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the question of invoking the extended period of time would not arise. The ratio of this Tribunal’s decision in the case of KDL Biotech Ltd. - [2010 (9) TMI 931 - CESTAT MUMBAI] would apply to the facts of the present case also. Consequently, the question of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC also would not arise. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|