9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeals. We have heard Shri V.K. Agarwal, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Ravi Raghvan, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The dispute relates to valuation of the goods manufactured by M/s Him Teknoforge Ltd. and sold by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties to show that either the prices were more or less the same or in some cases, the same are below the normal price in some cases the same were above normal price. For better appreciation, we reproduce para 49 : 49. I further note that the charge of related persons made out in this case is based upon the observations that S/Sh. Manan Agarwal Director of HIM and Rajeev Agarwal (Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the invoices certifying that the sale has been done in transit by endorsing the documents under Section 6A of CST Act, 1956 under E-1 form. The transit sales are permitted legally under CST Act, 1956 and as such, nothing adverse can be noticed from such transactions. The appellant and HIM having been held to be not related persons , the sales made by the dealers of HIM no longer remain as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arged by the appellant from their other dealers. The appellants have submitted charts showing the comparative wholesale prices charged by them from their dealers as well as from HIM. On perusal of these charts it is found that the prices charged by the appellants from their dealers are more or less the same as charged from HIM. However, there are instances where the price charged from HIM is lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls have again reiterated the grounds as regards the valuation since the respondents M/s Him Gears (P) Ltd. have to be treated as related persons, inasmuch as, the Directors in both the cases being uncle and nephew. We find that the two units are Limited companies having independent existence and the sales made by one cannot be held to be same sale to their related persons. Apart from the above, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
