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>Tribunal sets aside duty demand under Valuation Rules, ruling in favor of appellant</h1> <h3>M/s NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD Versus COMMMISIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, RAIPUR</h3> M/s NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD Versus COMMMISIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, RAIPUR - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in this case are the determination of the value of goods sold by the appellant to inter-connected undertakings, the application of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, and the imposition of excise duty based on the valuation of goods sold.Issue 1: Determination of Value of Goods Sold to Inter-connected UndertakingsThe appellant, a manufacturer of TMT bars, sold goods to inter-connected undertakings, namely M/s JSPL and M/s JPL. The Department contended that the value of goods sold to inter-connected undertakings should be determined as per Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules for the period prior to 01.03.2013 and as per Rule 9 for the subsequent period from December 2013 onwards. The appellant argued that Rule 10 should apply, specifically Rule 10(a) as the appellant and JSPL and JPL are related persons, and therefore, Rule 11 should not be applied.Issue 2: Application of Central Excise Valuation RulesThe Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 provide for the determination of the value of goods in specific situations. Rule 11 is the residual rule to be applied when the situation is not covered by any other valuation rule. In this case, it was found that the appellant and JSPL and JPL are related persons as interconnected undertakings. As per Rule 10(a), when the buyer and seller are related persons, the value should be determined as if they are not related persons. Therefore, Rule 11 cannot be applied, and the duty demand under Rule 11 of Valuation Rules was set aside.Issue 3: Imposition of Excise Duty based on Valuation of Goods SoldThe Department issued a show cause notice proposing to recover the allegedly short-paid duty and imposing penalties. The appellant contended that duty should be paid based on the transaction value, as they sold goods to inter-connected undertakings. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, finding that the demand of duty under Rule 11 of Valuation Rules could not be sustained. The value of goods sold to inter-connected undertakings should have been determined as if they were not related persons, as per Rule 10(a) of the Valuation Rules. The extended period of limitation was not examined as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the merits of the case.
TaxTMI 