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 Dismissed: Court Upholds Valuation of Custom Motor Parts Including Discounts; Export Sales Argument Rejected.</h1> <h3>M/s. D.D. INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI</h3> The court dismissed the appeal concerning the valuation of customized motor vehicle parts under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's ... Valuation of goods - customised motor vehicle parts sold to various classes of buyers i.e. industrial customers as well as industrial and another domestic customers including export sales - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the assessee who stressed upon the applicability of Rules 9 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, as they existed at the relevant time, and sought to urge that the customs valuation rules were inapplicable. This court is satisfied that the concurrent findings with respect to the valuation are correct, and do not call for interference. Appeal dismissed. Issues involved: Valuation of goods under Section 4(1) of Central Excise ActThe appellant, an assessee, raised a question of law regarding the valuation of customised motor vehicle parts sold to various classes of buyers, including industrial customers, domestic customers, and export sales. The Order-in-Original accepted the assessee's contentions on the inapplicability of the extended period of limitation but confirmed show cause notices based on the finding that valuation under Section 4(1) involved adding the differential/discounted price at which goods were sold to a related party. The assessee's argument that valuation should be based on export sales to another party was rejected.The appellant contended that Rules 9 and 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, as they existed at the relevant time, should apply, and sought to establish that customs valuation rules were not applicable. The court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, upheld the concurrent findings on valuation, stating that they were correct and did not warrant interference.The appeal was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
