TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to consider the cost data supplied by the appellants during adjudication. On the same issue Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD [ 2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] observed that The provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers - The provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rential payable duty liability of Rs. 1,22,06,690/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Only) under Section 11A(2) [now Section 11A(10)] of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and direct M/s Clariant Chemicals (India) Limited, Mumbai Agra Road, Balkum, Thane - 400 607 to pay them forthwith alongwith accrued interest in terms of and in accordance with Section 11AB [now Section 11AA] of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and ii) I order appropriation of Rs. 18,38,334/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Four Only) against the demand confirmed at sr. no. 1 above. iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,22,06,690/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Two Lakhs Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Only) und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicating authority followed the directions of the Hon'ble CESTAT given vide order No. A/252/11/EB/C-II dated 11.03.2011 and finalised the assessment. 3.1 None appeared for the Respondent as the issue is in very narrow compass. We have heard the Shri Sunil Kumar Katiyar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. 4.1 Respondent are having two factories one at Thane and another at Roha. From their Thane factory they are clearing goods for captive consumption on the basis of stock transfer to Roha unit on payment of duty. The value as determined for the stock transfer for these goods on which the Central Excise duty was paid is disputed by the revenue and it was observed that the excisable value to be determined as per Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Rules, 2000 do not specifically prescribe such sequential application of various rules, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute, there was no need to look further and regardless of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 8, the assessable value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. ii) The conclusion that we are drawing in the present case would lead to determination of a value which, in our view, will not only be reasonable but also consistent with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. We would. at this stage, draw support from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) The provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 . 4.3 Taking note of the above observation made by the Larger Bench of Tribunal. Commissioner (Appeal) has directed adjudication authority to reconsider the issue in line of above decisions which is declaration of law on the subject. 4.4 We do not find any merits in grounds taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
