9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri G.S. Godbole, Manager, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal No. BPS (119)64/2003 dated 26-3-2003 and the respondents has filed Cross Objection against the said appeals. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding valuation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vice versa and also that the chairman of the two companies was common, the mutuality of interest, direct or indirect in the business of each other is not proved unless and until any extra commercial financial flow back from one company to the other is established with documentary evidence. The adjudicating authority has not cited or referred to any such documentary evidence in his impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... related person -Shareholder is not a related person - Section 4(4)(c)of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 4. Revenue s contention before us is that both the companies are related persons hence the value is correctly arrived at by the adjudicating authority, the impugned order is incorrect and is to be set aside. 5. On perusal of the record we find that the issue involved in this case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal that the assessee and the chemical company were related persons. This being so, it is unnecessary to go into the alternate arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee. 6. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order holding that both the respondents were not related persons and the assessable value has been correctly arrived is correct, legal and does not require any interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
