TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. NCPL was equivalent to the value at which the goods were being cleared to independent buyers. However, Revenue took a stand that in respect of clearances to related persons, the value should be adopted as 115% of the cost of the product, in terms of the provisions of Rule 8. 2. It was the appellant s contention that the provisions of Rule 8 has to be adopted only after ousting the provisions of Rule 4, inasmuch as the normal assessable value at which the goods were cleared to the independent buyers, was available, there was no requirement to go to the provisions of Rule 8. For the above proposition reliance is placed upon the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ispat Industries Limited - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri. LB), laying down th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1A(2B). The department having issued the notice itself shows that the deposits were not in terms of the Section 11A(2B). 5. After going through the impugned order it is seen that the show cause notice issued on 13-12-2005 for the clearances affected during the period December 2003 to June 2004, proposed confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants in terms of provisions of Section 11A, by invoking extended period of limitation. While filing reply to the show cause notice, appellants contested the demand on merits by submitting that inasmuch as the normal assessable value was available, the same has to be adopted for the purpose of clearances to their subsidiary units, in terms of the provisions of Rule 4, and the proposal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t remains that the department was aware that the assessee company is selling CAN to M/s. NCPL. Therefore, in respect of the period from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2004, the department cannot claim that it was not aware of the fact of sale of CAN by the assessee company to M/s. NCPL. Similarly since fact that M/s. NCPL is is subsidiary company of the assessee company is clearly mentioned in their balance sheet, which is a public document and which jurisdictional Range Officer in course of scrutiny of the ER-1 return are also supposed to examine, the department cannot claim that it was not aware of the relationship between the assessee company and the M/s. NCPL. Though that during the period of dispute the sales invoices were not required to be enclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
