2023 (1) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is a 100% EOU and cleared their excisable goods to their sister concern units on payment of duty as DTA sale. As per department the value of the DTA clearances was lower than the value of identical goods cleared to other related units as compared to clearances of the same products made to other unrelated buyers. The appellant & their sister concern units & other related units were falling under the definition of related person as defined in sub rule 2 of Rule 2 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported goods) Rules, 2007. The price of the clearance made to sister concern units & other related units appears to have influenced and the price was not the sole consideration in such transaction in as much as the difference in value....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation Rules after adjusting the quantity discount in accordance with Rule 3(3)(b) of the valuation Rules 2007. Rule 3(3)(b) provides that in sale between related person, the transaction value shall be accepted whenever the importer demonstrate that the declared value of finished goods being valued, closely approximates to one of the following values ascertained at or or about the same time. While determining the differential duty, shelter of sub-rule 3(3)(b) has been taken but at the same time reservation given in the same rule was not considered by department. To calculate the differential duty department resorted to sub rule 4(1)(a) of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of imported Goods) Rules 2007. But department failed to take n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort of above submission:- * COMMISSIONER V. TAVADEC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - 2003 (151)ELT A308(SC) * TAVADEC INDUSTIRES PVT. LTD. VS. COMM. OF CUSTOMS - 2002(145)ELT 548 (TRI. BANG.) * BUYING OVERSEAS VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2015(317)ELT 264 (TRI. MUMBAI) * EXCIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(I), MUMBAI, 2015(317)ELT 264(TRI-MUMBAI) * KOMET PRECISION TOLLS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. COMM. OF CUS (A), BANGALORE - 2009(245)ELT 737 (TRI. BANG) * COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C.EX. INDORE VS. HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD. 2009(235)ELT 256 (TRI. DEL) * EICHER TRACTOR VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI 2000(122)ELT 321(SC) * CADILA HEALTCARE LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX. VADODARA 2008(224)ELT 108(TRI. AHMD.) * MARK ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AHMD) * HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES (P) LTD. VS. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE -2009(241)ELT 545 (TRI. BANG.) * SIYARAM METAL PVT. LTD. VS. C.C.E, RAJKOT 2009(239)ELT 147 (TRI. AHMD.) * TITAN ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C.EX., HYDERABAD 2009(236)ELT 705 (TRI. BANG,) 03. Shri Ghanasyam Soni, learned Joint Commissioner (AR) for the department reiterates the findings of impugned order. 04. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that the Learned Commissioner has gone only on the basis that the buyer and seller are related in terms of Rule 2(2) of CVR, and proceeded to judge transactions in terms of valuation rule ibid. However, in terms of Rule 3 (3)(a) of CVR, where the....