9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Shri Ravi Raghwan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric storage batteries which they sell to various customers including to their subsidiary M/s. Caldyne Automatics Pvt. Ltd. (CAL). The ld. Advocate states that the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at CAL is reselling the impugned goods at almost 25% higher value to other customers. He states that application of Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules cannot be questioned as the same are applicable with reference to Rule 11. According to him, transaction value is to be determined for each removal and in view of Board s clarification dated 30-6-02, valuation done under the impugned order wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 0.41% of the sales made through the subsidiary company. In the absence of any doubt raised in respect of the sale to independent buyers, the same has to be prima facie accepted as arms length and it has to be taken as an acceptable basis for valuation for sales to related persons. The ld. Advocate for the appellants has cited the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at arms length. Keeping in view the ratio of these decisions cited above, we are of the prima facie view that in the case of the appellants, it is legally permissible to assess the impugned goods on the basis of price of comparable goods at which the same have been sold to independent buyers. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal. (Operative part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
