9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of comparable goods under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 - Held that:- demand is for the period October, 1996 to June, 2000. During this period appellants were clearing the same goods at a higher value to independent buyers than cleared to their subsidiary units. This fact is not in dispute. The appellants were paying duty on the goods cleared to their subsidiary units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I(EB) - Dated:- 24-11-2011 - Shri S.S. Kang and Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri Vishal Agrawal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Y.K. Agrawal, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby a demand of duty of Rs. 34,80,214/- is confirmed with interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the so-called sister concerns are independent units and the dealings are at arms length and the appellants were clearing the goods at the weighted average price of the goods cleared to independent buyers. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants or the so-called sister concerns are related persons. As the dealings are at arms length therefore it cannot be said that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty which were cleared to their subsidiary units. 5. We find that the demand is for the period October, 1996 to June, 2000. During this period appellants were clearing the same goods at a higher value to independent buyers than cleared to their subsidiary units. This fact is not in dispute. The appellants were paying duty on the goods cleared to their subsidiary units at the weighted averag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
