2016 (12) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ADC (AR) For the respondent         ORDER There is no dispute by the appellant that the transactions made by it during the impugned period were with its related party.  This attracted section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 4 (3) (b) thereof.  For such reason, Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000, was appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e production or manufacture of articles, the value shall be determined in the manner specified in rule 8." 2.  Rule 9 requires that the value of related party transactions shall be determined in the manner prescribed by that Rule, which  requires that reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of valuation rules read with section 4 (1) of the Central Excise A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for valuation is consistent with the principles of law  laid down in the valuation Rules. 5.  Appellant at this stage says that there is a quantification error in the impugned order proposed to be remanded.  We make it clear that any discrepancy pointed out by the appellant shall be looked into by the adjudicating authority in the course of readjudication. 6.  In the result, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X