2016 (11) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Valuation Rules, 2008. Therefore, differential duty was demanded. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellants are before us. 2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 3. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that in this case the appellants are clearing the goods not only to their sister unit but to independent buyers and paying duty on the clearance to their sister unit on the value at which the clearance made to independent buyers. These facts are not disputed. 4. As the appellant is clearing the goods to independent buyers, in that circumstance, we hold that the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2008 are not applicable to the facts of this case in the light of the de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by it through sale in commercial transactions to unconnected parties. There is no dispute that sale price in these transactions is the sole consideration. It also transferred part of the goods for conversion i.e. other than through sale. The present order has determined that the assessable value (would be sale price) of the goods so transferred is much higher than the price at which the appellants were selling goods in course of ordinary sale and commerce. This finding has been reached by adopting 115% of the cost of production of the goods. That the value so determined bears no resemblance to the sale price or would be sale price of the goods is evident Such a determination of value is clearly contrary to the principle of valuation and ....