Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 970

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the provisions of Rule 8 as prevailing during the relevant time will not apply to the assesses. On the second issue regarding valuation of steel items cleared on stock transfer to other plants of the assessee, we find that the concept of related person has no relevance.All the units are part of one company. There is no sale of goods in this stock transfer. The assesses have paid duty based on cost of production which is higher than the cost of production adopted uniformly by the department. We find that assessee paid duty on cost plus 15 per cent on the entire quantity of stock transferred to their other unit in Selam. The said amount was availed as credit by the Selam Steel Plant. The value adopted by them (Rs. 10,457/- per MT) is mu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd steel products liable to Central Excise Duty. The dispute arose regarding valuation of finished goods like plates, angles, channels, etc which were captively consumed in the project work by the assessee and also finished goods transferred by the assessee to Selam Steel Plant for use in further manufacture. In respect of the goods which are captively consumed by the assessee in the project work they have paid duty on the basis of market price of similar goods at the relevant time. In respect of the stock transfer of finished goods to Selam Steel Plant for use in further manufacture, the cost of production was arrived at based on CAS-4 standards and duty paid accordingly. Proceedings initiated against the assessee concluded in these two or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch situations. He further submitted that the original authority has fallen in error in interpreting the meaning of Rule 8. Assessee paid duty on these items used by them for civil work, taking the value of goods sold at the factory gate to independent buyers. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of the clearances made to other units like Selam Steel Plant the clearances are not on sale basis. These units are part of the same company. Hence, there is no question of interconnected or related party in the present case. The entire quantity of goods were stock transferred and not sold as assumed by the department. Since, there is no sale in such clearances assessee paid duty on the basis of cost of production. In fact, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. We find here the assesses are using only part of their production captively for project work. There are proper sale of these items to unrelated persons fulfilling the condition of transaction value for the purpose of Central Excise duty. The new Rule 8 introduced w.e.f. 1/12/2013 clearly makes departure to the effect that even where part of the excisable goods are not sold the value should be on the cost basis. The provisions of Rule 8 as prevailing during the relevant time have no application in the present case where the goods are partly sold under ex-factory basis and partly cleared for captive consumption. This has been repeatedly held in various decisions of the Honble Supreme Cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m Steel Plant. The value adopted by them (Rs. 10,457/- per MT) is much more than value on which duty is being demanded (Rs. 9,489/-). 11. Considering the above factual position, we find the impugned order dated 31/1/2006 is not sustainable on this ground. 12. Regarding the two departments appeals against the impugned orders we find that the only ground taken is that the costing of goods as per CAS-4 standards will be effective only from the date of issue of circular dated 13/2/2003 by the Board. We find the applicability of CAS-4 standards for all the cases even pending at the time of issue of circular has been upheld by Tribunal in the case of National Aluminum Company Limited 2005 (184) EKT 183 (Tri-Del). On the SLP filed, the Hon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates