9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the limited remand order of the Commissioner is not sustainable for the following reasons :- (i) That they had raised several questions before the Commissioner pertaining to the matter that there is no mutuality of interest between the supplier and the appellants and therefore, the value cannot be loaded. It is his contention that there were large number of suppliers and that point itself is sufficient to come to conclusion that there was no mutuality of interest; although they do not deny that most of the suppliers are related persons but there was no mutuality of interest between them. It is his contention that this question has not been gone into in terms of the evidence produced but the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-valuation, but only the Department wanted to enhance the value on the basis of related persons. (iv) While reiterating their contention he submits that for the purpose of holding mutuality of interest, both the parties should have mutuality of interest in each and as the Department has not produced evidence of such mutuality of interest in each other's industry, therefore, price as per the Invoice has to be accepted. He also refers to various grounds taken by them in terms of the appeal and seeks for disposal of the appeal itself. He refers to the detailed summary of personal hearing filed before the Commissioner wherein they had cited large number of judgments on. (a) The transaction value is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vo to re-examine the appellants' plea that there was no mutuality of interest and to give them an opportunity to establish the same, ld. DR reiterates the Department's stand and leaves the matter to the discretion of the bench. 3. On a careful consideration of the submission and perusal of the records, we notice from the submission filed before the Commissioner, the appellants had taken several grounds and the major ground taken by them was that there was lack of mutual interest and in this regard relied on the following judgments :- List of decisions on the acceptance of transaction value due to lack of mutuality of interest : = &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. A62 (S.C.)] = Kalyani Brakes Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - [1997 (89) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.)] = Union of India v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited - [1981 (55) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.)] = Approved by Supreme Court in [1995 (76) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] We notice that this is an important issue which should have been gone into by both the authorities in the light of the above judgments and given a clear cut findings as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
