9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. Anish Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondent Per: B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against the common impugned order dated 09.02.2010 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. 2. The main respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of "Ply Wire". Based on certain information that the respondents are clearing their excisable goods to various related parties and did not disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not produce any evidence regarding flow back, suppression of value with reference to normal transaction value etc. He held that the evidences examined and analyzed by the original authority did not establish that the sale transaction is not a normal commercial transaction. Accordingly, he allowed the appeals of the respondents. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is in appeals. 3. The Ld. AR represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as well as partners of the respondent firm. These four buyers and the respondent firm are interconnected is not disputed. However, two of the buyers were private limited companies. As juristic person they cannot be held to be "relative of the respondent firm". Other than this, the original authority did not examine as to the category in which these two private limited companies can be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the market conditions. There is no question of rejection them as there are no value reduction by any extraneous situation. No decision of this aspect was made in the original proceedings perhaps on the reason that since the buyers were held to be interconnected, the transaction is automatically tainted. We note that the impugned order relied on two decisions of the Tribunal in the case of R.B. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
