TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NDS. LTD. ORS. [ 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that What ultimately distributors did with these goods is extraneous and could not be the relevant consideration to determine the valuation of excisable goods. When we find that price was charged by the assessee from the distributors, the show cause notice is clearly founded on a wrong reason. The case would squarely be covered under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The demand cannot sustain. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed. - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Manne Veera Niveditha, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Satyanarayanan, Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2022 (380) ELT 531 (S.C)]. It is further submitted that Section 4 and 4A are independent sections and governed by specific legal principles. Section 4 is governed by Valuation Rules 2000, which have no nexus or application for valuation under section 4A. Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000, that is relied in the Show Cause Notice for the purpose of computing the pro-rata basis value as per Section 4A which is highly erroneous. The said rule cannot be adopted for valuation under Section 4A. The very basis of the demand is incorrect. 3. The Learned AR Shri Sathyanarayanan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue to be decided is whether the physician ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advert to the central issue, viz., whether provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act are applicable or not. 8 . Section 4 reads as under :- Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory; from where such goods are removed; (cc) time of removal , in respect of the excisable goods removed from the place of removal referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c), shall be deemed to be the time at which such goods are cleared from the factory; (d) transaction value means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reason. The case would squarely be covered under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In view thereof, the Central Excise Rules would not apply in the instant case . 11 . As a result, we are of the opinion that the decision dated 10-11-2006 rendered by the CESTAT depicts the correct position of law and rightly holds that the case would be covered by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and in view thereof Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules would not apply. Resultantly, Civil Appeal Nos. 3742-3744 of 2007 of the Revenue fail and are hereby dismissed. C.A. No. 6984/2009; C.A. No. 9876-9878/2011; C.A. No. 1990-1992/2012; C.A. No. 3338/2012; C.A. No. 268-269/2015; C.A. No. 6571-6575/2015; C.A. No. 3387-3389/2005; C.A. No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
