TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise Act, merely because they are interconnected undertakings, the transaction value cannot be rejected - There is no justification for rejecting the lower transaction values to related buyers and re-determination of value by costing method - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.51407 of 2014 - A/55765 /2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earance made to related parties on the basis of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. In terms of this Rule, the value was determined on the basis of costing of the goods as per CAS 4 standard and by adding notional profit of 10%. The differential duty was confirmed on the above basis by the original authority as well as first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the order in appeal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Raipur [Final Order No.53362/2016 dated 30.8.2016]. 5. Learned DR supported the impugned order. He argued that the customers were interconnected undertakings which are to be considered as related persons in terms of section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the transaction value cannot be accepted and value needs to be redetermined. 6. It is not disputed that M/s. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rested in the business of each other. We also note that the goods are not entirely sold to related interconnected buyers but are also sold to independent buyers. It is settled position of law that under such circumstances, section 4(1)(a) will be applicable and the transaction value is to be accepted even though such values are lower than the values for unrelated buyers. 7. We have also gone th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
