TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and upheld towards clandestine removal of goods is correct or otherwise. (ii) Whether the demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 5,63,540/-, on the ground that the value of supplies made to related parties is governed under Rule 8 of Central Excuse Valuation Rules, 2000, is correct or otherwise. (iii) Whether the personal penalty imposed under Rule 26 on Shri Pragnesh Zariwala, Ishwar S Zariwala and Dharmesh H Zariwala is correct or otherwise. 1.2 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have cleared the goods partly to unrelated buyers and partly to related buyers. In case of both the clearances, the appellant have paid duty on transaction value. The case of the department is that for the clearance of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement Pvt Ltd- 2014 (302) ELT 334 (Guj.) • Sunil sponge Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE Raipur - 2015 (318) ELT 150 (Tri.-Del.) • Jai Crop Ltd Vs. CCE Daman- 2015 (317) ELT 0353 (Tri.-Ahmd.) • Ganga Board Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE Vapi - 2012 (276) ELT 532 (Tri.- Ahmd.) 3. Shri A.K Samota, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that as regard the demand of Rs. 58,129/- on the charge of clandestine removal , the appellant have not pressed effectively in this regard. Therefore, without going into the detail, we uphold the demand of Rs. 58,129/-. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imply stated "where excisable goods are consumed by an assessee himself or on his behalf in the manufacture of other articles" instead of preceding the above expression with the words "where the excisable goods are not sold". This view is also supported by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indian Drug Manufacturers Association v. Union of India, wherein the Court held that Rule 8 applies in a situation where goods are not sold but are cleared 'exclusively' to be used in consumption or for manufacture of other articles. We also agree with the contention of the assessee that Rule 8 will apply only in two situations, (a) where the goods are consumed by him in the same factory (captive consumption) or (b) where such g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rules, i.e. Rule 4 and Rule 8, were applicable, it would only be logical to read and apply the various rules in the Central Excise Valuation Rules in a sequential manner. Though the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not specifically prescribe such sequential application of various rules, the same, in our view, is the only reasonable way to read these rules. Any other interpretation would only lead to confusion and chaos. Since the applicability of Rule 4 is not really in dispute, there was no need to look further and regardless of the applicability or otherwise of Rule 8, the assessable value should have been determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. 8. The conclusion that we are drawing in the present case would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved above, we answer the reference in the following terms : (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10. The papers are now returned to the referral Bench for pa....