2017 (3) TMI 1216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to their sister concern, input on which credit was taken, by reversing the said credit during the during the period 1-3-2003 to 30-6-2003. During the period July, 2001 to February, 2003 they were clearing the input as such after reversing the credit equal to the duty of excise which is applicable on said goods on the date of such removal and on the value determined for such goods under the Act. Ld. Counsel argued that the in the present case is no longer res integra and is covered by the Circular of the CBEC dated 1-7-2002 as also by this Tribunal order in case of Vikas Laminators Ltd. Vs. CCE[2001(170) ELT 464(T)] and the Larger Bench decision in case of Eicher Tractors Vs. CCE[2005(189) ELT 131(T-LB)]. It was further argued that demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same company and where no sale is involved. It may be noticed that sub-rule (1C) of Rule 57AB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 (now 2002), talk of determination of value for "such goods" and not the "said goods". Thus, if the assessee partly sells the inputs to independent buyers and partly transfers to its sister units, the transaction value of "such goods" would be available in the form of the transaction value of inputs sold to an unrelated buyer (if the sale price to the unrelated buyer varies over a period of time, the value nearest to the time of removal should be adopted). Problems will, however, arise where the assessee does not? sell the inputs/capital goods to any indep....