TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de and the case is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of verification of price adopted. - EXCISE APPEAL NOs.E/A/349-350/08 - A-220-221/KOL/2012 - Dated:- 17-4-2012 - SHRI S.K.GAULE, DR. D.M.MISRA, JJ. SHRI B.N.CHATTOPADHYAY, CONSULTANT FOR THE APPELLANT(S); SHRI B.B.AGRAWAL, A.R.(COMMISSIONER) FOR THE REVENUE. Per Dr. D.M.Misra These two Appeals are filed against the Order-in-Original No. 01/MP/AYUKT/2008 dated 31.03.2008 by M/s. Gangotri Electrocastings Ltd. (here-in-after referred to GEL) in Appeal E/A/349/08 and M/s. Gangotri Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (here-in-after referred to GISCO) in Appeal No.E/A/350/08. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant, M/s. G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals. 3. Learned Consultant appearing for the Appellants has not pressed the issue of related person , as alleged in the Show Cause Notice and confirmed by the Commissioner. He has submitted that even if both these Appellants are related to each other, the goods transferred from M/s. GEL to M/s. GISCO for consumption by the latter, are liable to be assessed on the basis of comparable prices of similar goods sold to independent buyers. He has submitted that in the present case, M/s. GEL manufactured MS Ingots which were sold by them to independent customers and a part of the manufactured goods were also cleared to M/s. GISCO. He has submitted that the price at which the goods were sold to the independent customers and the price at which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in absence of a transaction value under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation(Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. He has further submitted that in the present case, since the goods are cleared for consumption by the related unit, the same are assessable under Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 as rightly held by the learned Commissioner in the impugned Order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. Question of valuation of goods cleared for home-consumption when similar goods sold to the independent buyers, had been referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd.(supra). Precisely, the issue referred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Larger Bench in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. (supra), the assessable value of the goods cleared by M/s. GEL to M/S. GISCO ought to have been determined on the basis of sales to independent customers as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 and not under the provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, as held by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned Order. We find that that the learned Commissioner has neither examined the claim of the Appellant nor recorded any finding that during the relevant period, the price at which MS Ingots were sold to independent customers were adopted for clearance of similar goods to their related company, M/s. GISCO for consumption. Hence, the said facts need verification. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
