TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs appealed against, the period of demands, the duty demands confirmed and the penalties imposed are given in the table below : Sr. No. Period SCN dated O-I-O dated O-in-A dated Demand (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) Appeal No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1.1 1-4-2001 to 31-10-2005 4-4-2006 No. 09- 10/MS/(09- 10)/commr/RGD/07-9 dated 9-5-2007 ----- 1,92,63,411/- 1,92,63,411/- E/1087/07 1.2 1-11-2005 to 30-6-2006 28-11-2006 11,33,434/- 11,33,434/- 2.1 1-7-2006 to 31-12-2006 6-7-2007 Raigad/ADC/05 to 06/08-2009 dated 29-8-2008 YDB/152/RGD/2009 dated 12-11-2009 14,82,048/- 5,00,000/- E/185/10 2.2 1-1-2007 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem Ltd., is a manufacturer of various grades of Polystyrene. Scrutiny of the records maintained by the appellant revealed that the appellant had cleared the said goods to their own sister concerns situated at Daman, Pondichery, Noida, etc. and the sister concerns are related persons as defined in Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department was, therefore, of the view that the transaction prices on which the appellant has discharged the duty liability cannot be taken as assessable value and the assessable value needs to be re-determined in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rules 8 and 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The said rules provide for determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies Ltd. - 2005 (186) E.L.T 529 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a situation where the goods were sold by the manufacturers to certain buyers who were having advance licences. The buyers of the goods surrendered their advance licences in favour of the manufacturers/suppliers. The question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the transaction price could be accepted or the consideration by way of surrender of licences should be quantified in monetary terms and treated as an additional consideration for the sale of goods. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the surrender of the advance licences in favour of the manufacturers/suppliers is an additional consideration that needs to be added to the transaction price to arriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t arise at all. The learned Counsel further submits that in the order dated 9-5-2007, the learned adjudicating authority has considered this issue and came to the conclusion that Rule 8 will not apply. Thereafter, he proceeded to determine the assessable value under Rule 4 wherein the prices of similar goods sold by the appellant to independent buyers were taken as the basis and accordingly, the adjudicating authority reworked the duty demand. However, the appellants were not put to notice nor were they given any opportunity to make submissions in respect of revised ground taken by the adjudicating authority for determination of assessable value under Rule 4. It is also their contention that even while making the computation, the adjudicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis for determination of duty demand. However, he has no objection if the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to rectify any error which might have crept in while re-computing/re-determining the duty demands. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 We observe that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, which has been invoked in the show cause notice for determination of value is not the appropriate rule, especially when the supplies made to the sister concerns formed only a small portion of total supplies effected by the appellant manufacturer. In Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-L.B.), a question arose before the Tribunal whether the assessable value in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence in the dates of delivery of such goods and of the excisable goods under assessment, as may appear reasonable". Therefore, the value of such goods sold by the appellant to the independent buyers at the nearest point of time to the goods under clearance should be the basis for re-determination of value. It is immaterial whether such value is prior to the removal of the impugned goods or after removal of the impugned goods. Only condition is that it should be nearest to the time of the removal of the goods for which duty is being demanded. Further, if such value needs adjustment for any reason (say) if the grade/quality is different or the quantum of sale is different, adjustments will have to be made from the value of such goods to det....