2005 (2) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Kang, Vice-President]. Heard ld. SDR. M/s. Birdi Steels made a request to decide the appeal on merits. 2. M/s. Birdi Steels filed these appeals against order-in-appeal whereby the differential duty is confirmed and penalties were imposed. 3. The dispute in this case is in respect of the valuation of the goods cleared by M/s. Birdi Cycle Industries. The demand was confirmed on the groun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d circumstances of the case. 6. The Tribunal in the earlier case of the appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. 478. In this case the Tribunal held that the valuation of goods sold to or through related persons, the sale price of the goods which were cleared to unrelated persons is to be taken for asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me rate at which were cleared to the related persons. As the duty was demanded after taking into consideration the same price to the independent buyers, therefore, we find no infirmity in respect of the demand of duty and imposition of penalty in the impugned order. The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. 8. In the appeal filed by the Revenue the only ground is for enhancement of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X