9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1090X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the interconnected undertaking; and (b) either the assessee or its buyer are the holding company or subsidiary company or they are also related in terms of clause 2nd, 3rd or 4th of section 4 (3)(b) and only when the above conditions are satisfied , the transaction value can be rejected and has to be determined in the manner prescribed in Rue 10. In this case according to the appellant, these conditions are not satisfied, but the commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has not examined this plea. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Stay Application No.E/S/53897/2014 in Excise Appeal No.E/53495/2014-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 50717/2015 - Dated:- 24-2-2015 - Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Mr.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s basis that the duty demand of ₹ 59,631/- was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner against the appellant alongwith interest under section 11AB and penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed and penalty of equal amount was imposed. On appeal being filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in Appeal dated 28.02.2014, rejected their appeal. In the course of appeal proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant pleaded that merely because the appellant and M/s. Gajra Differential Gears Pvt. Ltd. are interconnected undertakings, they do not become related person for the purpose of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, as the two interconnected undertaking can be treat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a holding company or subsidiary company of the assessee, that in this case these conditions are not satisfied and hence, the appellant and M/s. Gajra Gears Pvt. Ltd. cannot be treated as related person, that in any case since the entire sales of the appellant are not to or through M/s. Gajra Differential Gears Pvt. Ltd. differential gears, the provisions of Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules would not apply and that in any case, even if this Rule is applied the assessable value cannot be determined on the basis of 110 % of the selling price, as in case, the Rule 10 read with Rule 8 is invoked assessable value is 110% of the cost of production. He therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct as the same has been passed without cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
