TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the case are that the appellant an 100% EOU, is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of P&P medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of Audit, it came to the notice of the officers that the appellant had made clearance into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) between 20102011 and 2011-12 to one M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited, who is their holding company. Initially, the assessable value for payment of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) has been computed on the basis of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the goods. However, from February 2012, the appellant had changed the method of assessment by discharging BCD on the transaction value at which goods are sold to their holding company M/s. Strides Arcolab Limited and adopted the MRP based assessment for calculation of CVD. The Department alleged that since the value at which the goods were sold by the appellant to their holding company, being a related person, the transaction value adopted by the appellant for payment of BCD cannot be accepted; and in absence of any documentary evidences with regard to the method adopted by the appellant for arriving at the transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adopted under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Learned advocate has further submitted that what cannot be done directly also not permitted to be done indirectly. In support, he has referred to the judgment in the case of Institution of Mechanical Engineers Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2019 SC 3882]. Further, they have submitted that following various judgments of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal in a series of cases held that BCD for clearances of goods by a 100% EOU into DTA cannot be determined on the basis of MRP minus abatement. In support, they referred the judgment in the case of Maneesh Export Vs. CCGST&CE, Belapur [2024(4) TMI 224]. 4. Per contra, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue, reiterating the findings of the learned Commissioner / Commissioner (Appeals) has submitted that the appellant had cleared the goods to their holding company which are related as per Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; hence the transaction value has to be in conformity with the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. They had failed to provide any data of import of similar goods as comparable value; therefore, the value of the imported goods ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een the appellant and the buyer, their holding company, being a related transaction, hence in absence of any other comparable value or documentary evidences, the transaction value to be rejected. 9. The objection of the Revenue arose from an audit objection whereunder it is pointed out that on a comparison of the invoices prior to February 2012 and thereafter, it was noticed that there was drastic reduction in the invoice price. Explaining the price difference, it has been stated by the appellant that earlier, the value adopted by them was MRP based value from which the abatement was reduced to arrive at the assessable value on which the BCD as well as CVD had been calculated and discharged accordingly; but post-2012 realising that the BCD paid by them was in excess, accordingly they declared the transaction value and paid duty and continued to pay CVD on MRP less abatement. The Revenue's argument on the other hand is that since the parties to the transactions are related and in absence of any comparable price, the assessable value should be determined resorting to Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 in making adjustment of their comparable declared MRP price less abatem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) In a free trade zone and brought to any other place in India; or (ii) By a hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking and allowed to be sold in India; shall be an amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India, and where the said duties of customs are chargeable by reference to their value; the value of such excisable goods shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)." 10. As is clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid proviso, in those cases where excisable goods are produced or manufactured by hundred per cent export oriented undertaking are allowed to be sold in India, the duty of excise has to be the amount equal to the aggregate of the duties of customs which would be leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act, on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India and where the said duties of cus....