TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties, it was observed that they had removed such goods for delivery to different independent buyers as well as to their own units, viz., AEI Works, Kolkatta and Naini works, etc., on payment of duty. It was observed that the prices shown in the invoices for delivery to their own units were much less than the price charged for similar / comparable goods removed to the independent buyers. The Departmental officers therefore held the view that the value of goods for payment of duty from one unit to the other of the same company was required to be adopted on the basis of the prices available for delivery of the comparable goods to the independent buyers in terms of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Accordingly, a show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng as follows:- "14. In view of the above findings, therefore, we hold that all the types of VI Tubes cleared by the appellants to their sister units are liable to be assessed at the value of the comparable goods as determined in the impugned order of the Commissioner and the appellants are liable to pay the differential duty for these tubes by application of extended period of time under the proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. 15. The appellants shall also be subject to appropriate penalty corresponding to the demand of duty as aforesaid. The matter is thus remanded to the original authority for quantification of the amount of differential duty and the imposition of penalty. 16. The matter relating to the liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. EID Parry (I) Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-1590-CESTAT-MAD. b. Sterlite Industries Ltd. Vs. CEGAT, Mumbai - 2009 (246) ELT 109 (Mad.) c. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Cadbury India Ltd. - 2006 (200)ELT 353 (SC). 2.1 The ld. counsel submits that in their own case, for the period 1999 2000, on identical issue, which was also prior to the introduction of CAS-4 valuation, the matter had been decided in their favour by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata vide order No. 34(Denovo)/COMMR/CE/KOL.III/2006-07 dated 28.2.2007. Ld. counsel submits that this order has not been appealed by the department and he submits that this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner but the same was no....