9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal of the Revenue is against the dropping of demand of duty on goods manufactured by the respondents and sold to M/s. BPL Ltd. who, in turn, marketed the goods through their own dealers. The demand of duty which was raised by show-cause notice and confirmed by Order-in-Original was dropped by the impugned order and the same related to the period April 1998 to February 2000. The SCN h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction was at arm s length and on principal-to-principal basis. They denied mutuality of interest between them and M/s. BPL Ltd. and claimed that their buyer was not related person in terms of Section 4. This case of the assessee was rejected by the original authority. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), dealing with the assessee s appeal filed against the order of adjudication, found that his predec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra) and the same had been admitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the Tribunal s decision was not to be taken as final and correct. The correctness of the Tribunal s decision is in jeopardy, learned SDR submitted, relying on the Apex Court judgment in UOI v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 2004 (164) E.L.T. 375 (S.C.). 3. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be followed as a precedent. It would mean that OIA No. 237/2002 ibid, which was upheld by the Tribunal in BPL Sanyo case, must also be considered to have lost its precedent value. Thus the impugned order, which simply followed the above OIA has become untenable and the same is set aside. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to pass fresh order after hearing the assessee and considering their cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
