9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of clearances is not justified - E/828/2000/MAS - 1276/2007 - Dated:- 4-10-2007 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - The impugned order sustained demand of duty of Rs. 48,749/-, the interest due thereon and the penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises. The assessee had not disclosed its marketing pattern and arranging of RMLM to receive sale proceeds from the assessee's customers. These transactions had indicated financial flow back from RMLM to RUMI. RUMI and RMLM were thus found to be related persons. The assessee had suppressed these facts. Considering the sale price of RMLM as basis of the assessable value of RUMI, the aggregate valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found mutuality of interest between RUMI arid RMLM to treat the latter as related to the former. In the absence of finding of mutuality of interest, in terms of the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 590 (Tri.- Chennai), the two entities could not be treated as related persons. RMLM was a separate class of buyer compared to other dealers. In respect of other dealers the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than rupees two lakhs made in the account of RMLM were returned to RUMI. The sale price-to RMLM was lower on account of cost of transportation and cost of advertisement materials which the assessee did not have to incur when they sold the goods to RMLM. RUMI did not pay overriding commission to sub-dealers (and added to assessable value) for clearances to dealers in the South unlike in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
