9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same was higher than the price to unrelated parties - Following decision of ULTRA REFRIGERATORS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-IV[2004 (4) TMI 167 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Birdi Steels Vs. CCE[2004 (10) TMI 145 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/1472/2004 - Final Order No. A/40121/2013 - Dated:- 7-5-2013 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri S. Kandasamy, Consultant For the Respondent: Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Mathew John The appellant is a firm of four partners one of whom was the Managing Partner. During the period July 2000 to September 2001, the appellant manufactured cotton yarn and sold about 93% of such yarn man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellant submits that appellant and M/s Jayakumar fabrics were independent entities and there was no mutuality of interest. Further, the appellants were selling such goods to independent buyers at prices lower than the price at which goods were sold to M/s Jayakumar Fabrics. 6. The main legal argument of the Counsel is that Rule 9 comes into force only in situation when the assessee so arranges that the excisable goods are not sold by an assessee except to or through a person or to buyers (being related person), who sells such goods in retail. In the case of the appellant, they sell goods to unrelated buyers at prices lower than the process at which goods are sold to M/s Jayakumar Fabrics. 7. Revenue s argument is that the two firms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e context of the new Rules notified in 2000. The decision of the Apex Court is in the context of an assessee who has been selling goods at prices substantially lower than cost price to capture the market. In this case, no case is made out that the price at which goods are sold to M/s Jayakumar Fabrics is less than cost price. So, we do not find that the said decision would apply in the facts of this case. So, we go by the decisions of the Tribunal already given in the matter to the effect that when prices of goods sold to independent buyers are available there is no scope for invoking provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 8. 11. So we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits. (Pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
