TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is the valuation adopted. The price adopted for sale into the DTA was the FOB price at which they exported to their parent companies/associate companies from the EOU. This value was not accepted by the revenue because the service centre to whom the appellants cleared the goods sold them at a higher price. Hence, proceedings were initiated against them. Even though, the appellants relied on the Board's Circular as well as the decided case laws, the Commissioner (A) came to the following conclusion : "From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that : (i) FOB value of export goods of related persons cannot be adopted to DTA sale in the case of related parties transaction. (ii) Value of similar goods imported cannot be adopted to DTA clearance where it is a transfer of goods from EOU to their own Service Centre in the DTA. (iii) SVB order on the question of relationship was not examined in the case of EOU unit and DTA Service Centre and therefore the ratio of SVB order cannot be adopted for DTA clearance. (iv) Board's circular clearly spells out the manner of determining the DTA price in the case of related persons. In view of the above, the price at which the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is reproduced herein below. "F. No. 268185-CX. 8, dated 29-9-1994 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Subject : Valuation of Goods Manufactured by units working under the 100% EOU Scheme - Regarding. I am directed to invite a reference to Board's instructions F.No. 202/12/84-CX.6, dated 29-5-1984 (Circular No. 23184-CX. 6), prescribing the manner of assessment of goods manufactured in EOU/EPZ units and cleared in the DTA, and to say that the Board has reviewed the said instructions consequent to certain difficulties expressed by the assessing Officers and the Trade in the working of these instructions. It may be recalled that the valuation of the goods was instructed to be carried out under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules (best judgment clause) keeping in view the following factors : (a) Sale (Invoice) Price of the goods under assessment; (b) Sale price of other consignments of identical/similar goods; (c) Export price of identical/similar goods; and (d) Nature of sale transaction, etc. It was indicated in the instructions that a reference could be made to the nearest Customs H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d how the Commissioner (A) has not accepted the said value. In any case, if we take the decided case laws, which are relied by the party, they are very relevant in this context. In the case of Axion Impex International Ltd. (supra), it has been held that when the export price of the same goods available and higher than the price of the goods sold in India, the same has to be accepted. In any case, it has been held that Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules is not applicable in such case. In the case of CCE, Nasik v. Krishna Filaments - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 175 (Tri.-Mumbai), it has been held that when the goods are cleared to DTA units by 100% EOU, the market value in India is not relevant to arrive at the valuation as prescribed under second proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further in the case of Tata Coffee Ltd. case (supra), it has been clearly held that FOB value of exported goods should be taken as assessable value when there are no imports of identical or similar goods. In the present case also, the FOB value of similar goods had been taken and it has also been demonstrated that the relation between the buyer and seller has not influenced the value by means ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted copies of all documents, they were summoned and recorded statements during December, 2001 itself where the entire facts were made known to the departmental officials. In the meanwhile, their DTA clearances were permitted by the range officials in the ARIA at the invoices value declared by them. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that they had suppressed any facts from the knowledge of the department. 11. Further, the whole issue came to the department's knowledge as early as September/December, 2001 but still the Show Cause Notice was issued only in the year 2006 invoking extended period by alleging suppression of facts and demanding duty for the period 19-3-2001 to 30-4-2002. As stated earlier, there was nothing on record that they have suppressed the facts of selling probes to their branches/service centers. All the invoices were also counter-signed by the officers as seen from the documents furnished by the appellants. The demand, therefore should have been made within six months, especially when the clearances were permitted by them even while entertaining doubts on the transaction as early as September/December, 2001. The demand is therefore hit by limitatio....