9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation before this Bench in the appellant s own case for the demand raised for the period 2003- 04 and 2005-06. The Bench in HINDUSTAN PUMPS ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., MALKOH MARKETING PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. - PANCHKULA, C.C.E. DELHI-III [ 2018 (10) TMI 532 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] held that 'the appellant are not related persons in terms of section 4(3)(b)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.' The issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants and the impugned orders cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed. - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as provided under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act; therefore, the valuation of the goods, cleared by M/s Hindustan Engineering Enterprises, should be made in terms of Section 4(1)3(b)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules; show cause notices were issued and were adjudicated demanding duty and penalties; the original authority confirmed the demands raised along with penalties and the appeals filed by both the appellants were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, these appeals. 2.1 Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the present issue is no longer res integra between the parties as CESTAT has decided the issue in favour of the appellants in their own case 2018 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises did not sell 100% of its clearances to M/s Malkoh Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules was wrongly invoked. 5. Shri Yashpal Singh, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the OIO and OIA. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the same issue has come for consideration before this Bench in the appellant s own case for the demand raised for the period 2003- 04 and 2005-06. The Bench vide Final Order No.63235-63241/2018 dated 05.10.2018 held that: 11. On going through the above provisions, we find that in terms of section 4(3)(b)(ii), if the person is relative then he should be relative in terms of Section 2(41) of Companies Act, 1956, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. We further find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 16.04.2013, deciding an order passed in respect of proceedings initiated against the appellants for the period January 2010 to September 2010, dropped the allegations. On an appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order, this Bench vide Final Order No. 60628-60629/2023 dated 28.11.2023 dismissed the appeal, albeit on monetary grounds. We further find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 28.01.2014 dropped the proceedings initiated for the period October 2010 to July 2011. 8. In view of the above, we find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants and the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
