TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Both units are owned by the same company and there is no sale involved in the transfer of goods from one unit to another. Under such circumstances, Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules specifically prescribes that the valuation for purpose of charging of excise duty is required to be made on the basis of 110% of the value of the goods ascertained as per the CAS-4. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/50241/2017 - Final Order No. 51780/2018 - Dated:- 11-5-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Sh. Manish Saharan. - for the appellant Shri M.R-Sharma.DR - for the respondent ORDER Per Bijay kumar The present appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the settled legal position that where transaction value is available for the goods, the valuation under Rule(8) and (9) of Central Excise Valuation Rule 2000 is not invocable as held in the following cases; (A) 2017 (355)EKT 568 Jindal Steel Power Vs Cce Jaipur (Tri) (del.) (B) 2017 (354)ELT 551 CCE Vs Ocean Metals (Tri. Chennai) (C) 2016 (335) ELT 91 Steel Authority vs CCE Raipur (Tri. Del) 3. On the other hand the Learned DR has relied upon the following case laws: Sr. No. Particulars Pg. No. 1. CCE, Indore vs. Surya Roshini Ltd., Final Order No. 54129/2016 dated 18.10.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods were sold to independent buyers as well as cleared to sister unit. The Revenue relied on the decision of Tribunal in Ispat Industries vs. CCE, Raigad-2007(209) ElT 185 (Tri.LB). We note the finding of original authority recorded as below: The assessee in their letter dated 28.05.2011 addressed to the Additional Commissioner as also in a letter dated 07.07.2011 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) Indore clarified that as per the Board s Circular No.634/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2000 and Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, they have transferred the goods to their sister concern correctly as per 110% of the cost of production on the basis of CAS-4 Certificate. They have also referred to the case laws in their support. The m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroduced which clearly state their application irrespective of whether the whole or a part of clearance of manufactured goods are covered by the circumstances given in the said rule. The Board further stated that these amendments in the rule addressed the issue clarified already vide Board circular dated 011.07.2002. In other words, it is apparent that the provisions for application 110%/115% of cost of production to be adopted for valuation as all along been the same. The Hon ble Supreme Court inCCE, Mumbai vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd.-2-12(283) ELT 161(SC) held that a bare reading of Valuation Rules does not give any indication of exicable goods had to follow the rules sequentially. The rules only provides for arriving at the assessble value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
