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 775 - CESTAT CHENNAIValuation - There is no dispute by the appellant that the transactions made by it during the impugned period were with its related party. This attracted section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 4(3)(b) thereof. For such reason, Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000, was applied - Rule 9 requires that the value of related party transactions shall be determined in the manner prescribed by that Rule, which requires that reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of valuation rules read with section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is to be followed. Held that: - In view of the application of Rule 9, the adjudicating authority has to re-determine the value of the related party transactions in accordance with law prescribed by Rule 4 to 7 of the valuation Rules. Appellant is entitled to know the methodology sought to be adopted by the adjudicating authority to lead its defence - It is expected that the authority shall issue notice to the appellant within three months of receipt of this order and hear the appellant on merits. Granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, he shall consider the defence plea and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of the last date of hearing. He shall expressly record in his order that the rule he applies for valuation is consistent with the principles of law laid down in the valuation Rules. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|