9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Technical) Ms. Krati Somani, Consultant,- for the appellant Sh. G.M. Sharma, AR - for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty along with interest for the main appellant and imposing penalty on all the appellants. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacture of car seats. The maximum production is being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out going into the other issue, it is evident from the show cause notice that maximum sale has been affected to related person M/s Krishna Maruti/ KML. The appellants are not affected 100% sale to these relates person. In that circumstances, the Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the proceedings against the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excisable goods are not sold by him except to or through a person who is related in the manner specified in either of sub-clauses (ii)(iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub section (3) of section 4 of the Act, the value of the goods shall be the normal transaction value at which these are sold by the related person at the time of removal, to buyers (not being related person); or where such goods are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein this Tribunal hold that in such situation, Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules is not applicable, therefore, we hold that the proceedings against the appellants are not warranted, therefore, the impugned order deserves no merits hence set aside.
Consequently, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
