TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities have verified the valuation of such transaction and contended that the value of the goods was under declared to the excise department. It was also contended that the price declared by the appellant to the excise authority was lower than the cost of production and also that the cost statement submitted to the Drugs control authorities were not disclosed to the excise authority. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 30-11-99 was issued whereby it was alleged that assessable value of bulk drugs cleared by the appellant to their sister unit should have been computed in terms of Rule 6 of the Valuations Rules. The adjudicating authority while deciding the show cause notice confirmed the demand of differential duty invoking longer period i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. He placed reliance on this Tribunal's decision in the case of Parke Dvis(I) Ltd Vs. CCE[2003(158) ELT 183] 3. Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 5. For better appreciation of legal provisions for valuation relevant Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rues, 1975 is reproduced below:- "Rule 6. If the value of the excisable goods under assessment cannot be determined under rule 4 or rule 5, and (a) ------------------------------------------ (b) where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree with this contention of the Ld. Commissioner for the reason that law does not made distinction between normal sale price or DPCO price in terms of Section 4(1)(a), DPCO price is sale price therefore same is normal sale price in terms of Section 4(1)(a), therefore even though it is DPCO price the same is acceptable as price of the comparable goods and therefore same will prevail over the value under Rule 6(b)(ii). The decision of this Tribunal in case of Parke Dvis(I) Ltd(supra) squarely applicable in the fact of the present case, relevant facts and findings of the said decision is reproduced below; 3.After hearing both sides and considering the matter on record it is found that :- (a) From the show cause notice issued in this case i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd would indicate that DPCO prices were being accepted by the department for very said bulk drugs captively consumed by them. No counter to this plea was made by Revenue or as has been arrived at in the impugned order. (c) Perusal of the reasoning; as extracted herein above and arrived at by the learned Commissioner, is found, that it has been held, that the said bulk drug and its sales are to their sister concern, who are related persons, as per Central Excise Act, 1944, and as such sister concerns were consuming the said bulk drugs captively, it would require the determination of the values as per Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 on the basis of costing as no comparable price was available. Perusal of the show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that Rule 4 or Rule 5 have to be specifically ruled out before one proceeds to apply provisions of Rule 6 as in this case. In the present case there is material available that goods are sold not only by the appellant but by many other manufacturers at DPCO prices fixed for the goods. Therefore it is clear that value of the excisable goods under determination in this case, could be based on the value of similar goods being sold by the assessee for delivery as provided for by Rule 4. Such price would be the DPCO price. In not ruling out application of Rule 4, the Commissioner appears to have been led by the charges in the show cause notice and has concluded that Rule 6(b)(ii). This would not be applicable, without ruling out Rule 6(b)(i), ....