2007 (11) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri Vineet Ohri, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -  Heard both sides. 2. The impugned Order has been passed by the Adjudicating Commissioner in respect of the clearances made by the appellants to their interconnected undertakings valuing the goods under Rule 8 and proviso to Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 taking r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equired to be applied. He also cites the following two decisions of the Tribunal in support of his contention :- (i)      C.C.Ex., Pune v. Arofine Polymers Limited - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 241 (Tri.- Mum.); and (ii)    Ispat Industries Ltd. v. C.C.Ex, Raigad - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri. - LB). 3. Shri Vineet Ohri, learned Joint C.D.R. appearing for the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aken into account for the purpose of quantifying the demanded amount. We also find that the appellants have made various legal submissions in their replies to show cause notice, which have not been taken into account by the Adjudicating Commissioner. As such, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and set aside the impugned Order and with the consent of both sides, remand the appeals to the Adjud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X