CCE Vs. TAFE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in these appeals is whether the assessable value of 'batteries' cleared by the respondents to their own units located at different places on stock transfer basis during the period of dispute [1.11.1998 to 31.7.1999], for use in further manufacture of tractors was to be determined in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 or in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the said Rules. The original authority adopted the whole sale price charged to whole sale dealers, for the purpose of valuation of the above goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) and accordingly demanded differential duty from the assessee on the above clearances. The first appellate authority, on the other hand, took the view that Rule 6(b)(ii), and not Rule 6(b)(i), would apply to the above clearance, for the purpose of determination of assessable value. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the original authority were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeals of the Revenue.

(2.) HEARD both sides. It was submitted by ld. SDR that the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. relied on in the impugned orders was not good law after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Madras , wherein it was held by their lordships that goods transferred to sister units were to be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act and not under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. No binding decision to the contra was cited on behalf of the respondents.