9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mr. V. Balasubramanian JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 16.5.2009 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- " Whether on facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansfer basis which were ultimately sold to M/s. Maruthi Udyog Ltd. after adding items like spring, dust covers, etc. As the goods are in a semi-finished condition and were not of comparatable nature, for the purpose of determining assessable value, valuation was resorted to under Rule 6(b) (ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 based on cost construction method. On verifiction, it was noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (M-IV) confirmed the demand order along with interest made by the adjudicating authority. Challenging the said order, the assessee approached the Tribunal. By its order dated 23.07.2008 made in Appeal No: E/657/2007, the Tribuanl allowed the assessee's appeal and hence, the Revenue is before this Court in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is brou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was done with bona fide belief or there was some mala fide intentions in doing so. It is here we agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, in the circumstances which are explained by him and recorded above. It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
