TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- It appears that it is not in dispute that during the relevant period, the appellant had supplied pig iron, rails etc. to its sister concern M/s Nalwa Steel Pvt. Ltd. as well as to independent buyers but for consideration. It is also not in dispute that the appellant raised invoices for the supplies made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant in respect of goods sold to the sister concern on the basis of sale consideration as per Section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Central Excise Act cannot be faulted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 2699 of 2011 with E/C.O. No. 80 of 2012 - Final Order No. 52977/2017 - Dated:- 18-4-2017 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President AND Hon ble Mr. V. Padm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculated as per Rule of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The department was of the view that the appellant who has not paid the excise duty in respect of the goods supplied to their sister concern M/s Nalwa Steel Power Limited in accordance with the rules of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. After issuing of show cause notice, the department has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the department plea is that since M/s Nalwa Steel Pvt. Ltd. falls within the definition of related party as defined under Section 4(3)(b)(i), the appellant ought to have assessed the excise duty payable as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules which reads as under- Rule 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aulted. 6. Further, it may be considered that as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal (Larger Bench) in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 2007 (209) ELT 185 (para 8), the assessee is correct in contending that provisions of Rule 8 would apply only in a case where its entire production of a particular commodity is captively consumed. This is evident on a plain reading of Rule 8 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
