9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. (AR) for respondent ORDER Per Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that the appellant is a unit of National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. (NTC) and they are engaged in the manufacture of dyed/printed cotton fabrics falling under Chapter 55 of the CETA, 1985. The appellant cleared the manufactured goods to the Central Distribution Centre (CDC), which belongs to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves. Therefore, there is no question of related person between the appellant and their own CDC, therefore, the entire demand based on the ground that the CDC is a related person of the appellant is incorrect. Therefore, the show-cause notice which is based on the wrong foundation, the entire proceedings will not survive. Hence, the demand is liable to be set aside only on this ground alone. He fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 547 (Tri-Del) 3. On the other hand, Shri. N. N. Prabhudesai, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. He further submits that the CDC falls under the category of interconnected undertaking as provided under the definition of related persons in Section 4. Therefore, it is a related person and in the case of related person, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e., National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd., the appellant and CDC, are under one single entity, i.e. the company, M/s. National Textiles Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. Therefore, among three there are no different persons involved. Accordingly, there is no related person exist in the entire transaction. In the show-cause notice, the entire basis for disputing the valuation is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
