2018 (5) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Soldium Silicate in liquid form falling under chapter heading No. 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The issue is regarding the valuation of goods manufactured by them and cleared to their sister concern, namely, M/s Kiran Global Chem. Ltd Panoli and M/s Kiran Golbal Chem Ltd Kolhapur. Both the adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority have held that the valuation of the goods which were sold to their sister concerned, should be at the rate of 110% of cost of production, in terms of Rule 8 & 9 of CVR 2000 which was not followed by the appellant. The disputed period is from October,2002 to March,2012. The Learned Advocate stated that with interest and imposed penalty ho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ited by the Learned Advocate has no application as of now. In view of above he submitted that the impugned order is correct and needs no interference. By considering the rival submissions and perusal of the case record we note that the goods have been cleared from their factory at Pitampur to their sister concerned at Parol and Kohlapur. Under such circumstances Rule(8) of the Central Excise Valuation Rule would apply for the purpose of charging Central Excise duty made on the basis of 110 % of the cost of production of a as per the CAS 4 certificate the aforesaid proposition find it is support from the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore Vs Surya Roshini Ltd, final order No. 54129/2016 dated 10/11/16 wherein it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... referred to in the Audit para appears not to be squarely applicable in this case as I the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. the issue of valuation decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court relates to value at the time of import of the goods and not of clearance of indigenously manufactured goods. Similarly, Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. decided the issue relating to transfer of part of final product to sister concern and balance to independent buyers and not the parts & components of the final products as involved in the present case. Similarly, in the case of M/s Aquamall Water Solution Ltd. the Hon'ble CESTAT decided transfer of goods to certain brands to depot and sale thereform and rest through unrelated buyers, v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X