9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. Ravichandran Revenue is in appeal in this case against Order-in-Appeal dated 31/01/2006 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent are engaged in the manufacturer of Tractor Parts and the entire production is sold to M/s International Tractor Ltd. (M/s ITL) who use the same for manufacture of tractors. 2. The transactions between these two we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the present case. The respondent and ITL are 'interconnected undertaking' and hence related persons. The respondent is a partnership firm, two of the partners are directors of ITL holding 50% of the total shares holding. They exercise control directly or indirectly over the functioning of ITL. On the question of limitation the Revenue contended that the declaration filed by the respondent und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excisable goods to their related M/s ITL, the assessable value of the said excisable goods is required to be determined in terms of the provisions of Section 4(3)(b)(iv) Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(c)(ii) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 upto 1.7.2000 and as per amended Section 4(i)(b) read with Rule 8, 9 and 10 of the valuation Rules 2000 w.e.f. 1.7.2000. 4. This al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amination and categorical finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of both limitation and on merits could not be faulted and we find no reason to interfere of the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). We also find that the Apex Court decision in the case of M/s I.T.E.C. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied on by the ld. AR is on different set of facts. As in the present case respondent in a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
