2016 (5) TMI 1316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... persons. We find that as per the provisions of law as existed during the material period, the said deductions were allowable for arriving at the assessable value. After allowing the said deductions, there is no differential duty demandable from the appellants - The finalization of the assessment was not challenged by the Revenue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned show cause notice is hit by limitation - Appeal allowed.
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T) Shri L.P. Asthana and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (DR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - These 5 (five) appeals are arising o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rted in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 202, both the appellant and M/s. Taj Services Ltd., being Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be treated as related persons. He further contended that at the time of original adjudication, they had claimed deductions on account of freight, trade discount, sales tax paid, cost of durable and returnable packages allowable under Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, from the invoice price received by them from M/s. Taj Services Ltd. and the same were not considered by the original authority. In the paper book at page 987 onwards, they have repeated their contentions that as per law, they are entitled for the above stated deductions. Further, they contended that through a let .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y gone through the records and the submissions before us. We find that both the appellants and M/s. Taj Services Ltd., are Companies incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, in terms of ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. (cited supra), we hold that M/s. Residency Foods & Beverages Ltd. and M/s. Taj Services Ltd., during the period covered by the appeal, were not related persons. Further, deductions claimed by the appellants referred to above, have not been contested by the Revenue by way of filing cross-objection and also during hearing. We find that as per the provisions of law as existed during the material period, the said deductions were allowable for arriving at the assessable value. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X