9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extra commercial consideration has been demonstrated. Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Xerographic Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be faulted only on the ground the concept of related person discussed therein was with reference to earlier Valuation Rules. There is no material difference in the basic principle with reference to valuation of goods when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the units are having two common Directors. Accordingly, the transaction value has to be arrived at based on cost of production (110% of cost of production), in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the respondent to demand differential duty. The case was adjudicated and the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 38,32, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Xerographic Ltd., - 2010 (257) ELT 11 (SC). 4. We find the only ground on which the transaction value of the respondent was sought to be rejected in the present case is that the two Directors were common for respondent-assessee as well as buyer. We note that the impugned order examined the status of both the parties. Both are private limited company though having common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section 4(3)(b) of the Act. It was also noticed that the respondent and M/s. M.K. Tubes are not holding/subsidiary companies. The impugned order further examined and that there is nothing on record to indicated common/mutuality of business interest in these transactions. Finally, the impugned order held that based on the factual position and applying the provisions of V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
