9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent for the Respondent: Mr. H.C. Saini, D.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty These 3 appeals involve same issue for different periods. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of motor vehicle parts, transmission shaft and tools liable to Central Excise Duty. The dispute in the present appeals relates to valuation of goods cleared by the appellant during the period 2006-2010. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Rules, in proper prospective. The transaction between two companies automatically does not attract valuation applicable to related person. The conditions mentioned in Rule 10 have not been satisfied. The impugned order did not record reasons for rejecting the transaction value and for resorting to valuation applicable to related persons. He also drew our attention to the Final Order No.50717/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We note the impugned order did not explain how two Private Limited Companies having separate legal existence, can be considered as "relatives". Relationship between natural persons holding position in these companies cannot make these two companies automatically "relative" within the meaning of Section 4. We also note that there is no cost calculation based CAS-4. It is not clear how the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction value in such cases the conditions prescribed in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules have to be satisfied which are that - (a) all the sales of the excisable goods are to or through the interconnected undertaking; and (b) either the assessee or its buyer are the holding company or subsidiary company or they are also related in terms of clause 2nd, 3rd or 4th of section 4 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
