TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Granted for Revaluation of Related Party Transactions under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Trichy</h3> M/s. Kannappan Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Trichy - TMI Issues:1. Application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 to related party transactions.2. Requirement for the adjudicating authority to re-determine the value of related party transactions.3. The authority's obligation to issue notice, hear the appellant, and pass a reasoned order.4. Addressing quantification errors in the impugned order.Analysis:The judgment dealt with the application of Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 to related party transactions under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was acknowledged that the transactions in question were with a related party, triggering the application of Rule 9. The rule stipulates that the value of such goods shall be the normal transaction value at which they are sold by the related person at the time of removal to buyers, not being related persons. Furthermore, Rule 9 mandates that the value of related party transactions should be determined in a manner consistent with the principles and general provisions of valuation rules and the Act.The judgment emphasized that the adjudicating authority must re-determine the value of related party transactions in accordance with the law prescribed by Rules 4 to 7 of the valuation Rules. The appellant was entitled to be informed of the methodology to be adopted by the authority to present its defense effectively. The authority was directed to issue a notice to the appellant within three months, provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, consider the defense plea, and pass a reasoned order within three months of the last date of hearing. It was crucial for the authority to explicitly state in the order the rule applied for valuation and its consistency with the principles of law laid down in the valuation Rules.Regarding quantification errors raised by the appellant in the impugned order, the judgment clarified that any discrepancies pointed out should be examined by the adjudicating authority during the readjudication process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating a decision to send the case back to the lower authority for further consideration and action in line with the directions provided in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
