9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-alloy bright bar (S.H. 72155010). An Audit of the appellant was conducted for the Year 2005-06 to 2009-10 and it was alleged that the appellant has been clearing the finished products at lesser value to the buyer M/s Gera Enterprises, Faridabad. On these allegations, a Show cause notice dated 6.4.2011 was issued to the appellant that the appellant had been clearing the manufactured goods at a lower assessable value to M/s Gera Enterprises, who is a related person of the Appellant as the same is a proprietary concern owned by Shri M.L. Gera who is the father of Shri Raj Kumar Gera i.e. the proprietor of the appellant. The show cause notice proposed recovery of short levy of Rs. 2,44,191/- on the basis of the value of clearances of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation of the aforesaid provisions, the order imputes that since the goods are sold by the appellant to its related person viz. M/s Gera Enterprises, Faridabad, who consumes the same captively in the production of other goods, the assessable value of these goods sold to M/s Gera Enterprises should be calculated at 110% (of the value charged from M/s Gera Enterprises) in terms of Rules 8 ibid. 5. To counter this finding, Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned order concludes on the basis of an incorrect appreciation of provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. He further submits that in Para 2 of show cause notice, it is alleged that "the Noticee had been clearing the finished goods at lesser (assessable) value to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act or fraud etc. The appellant has been filing monthly returns in form ER-1 showing clearance of goods at appropriate rate of duty on the appropriate value of these goods. He further submits that this issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported in 2007 (209) ELT 185 wherein it has been held as under:- "The provisions of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers." 8. Ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudershan Castings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CCE-Jammu vide Final Order No. 60965-60970 of 2017 dated 29th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
