TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated person" in the Balance Sheet of the Applicant. At this stage, it is difficult to accept that merely on these facts, it could be said that there have been mutuality of interests so as to bring them within the fold of Clause (iv) of Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 4, occurring in the definition of "related persons". Prima-facie, we are of the view that once the ingredients viz. Clause (ii) (ii) & (iv) of Sub-section (3) of Section 4, are not satisfied, the assessment of goods sold to these Units, would be in accordance with Rule 10 (b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In other words, the "transaction value" at which, the Applicants sold/cleared the goods to these Units, namely, M/s J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d other unit is almost closed and the Group as a whole is running in loss. 3. Per contra, the ld.A.R. appearing for the Department, submits that the relations between the Applicant and the other two Units satisfy the definition of related persons , bring inter-connected undertakings, and also having mutuality of interest, as is evident from the findings of the ld. Commissioner. Therefore, Rule 11 read with Rule 4 would apply, instead of Rule 10 (b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, as claimed by the ld. Advocate for the Applicant. Consequently, the clearances to these two Units be determined on the basis of comparable selling price, at which goods are also sold to independent buyers during the relevant period. 4. Heard bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons , is erroneous. It is his submission that these facts are not sufficient to establish mutuality of interest, in absence of free flow of interest in both the directions, hence, for the purpose of determination of assessable value, even though they do not dispute that these two units are inter-connected undertakings, the assessable value be determined under Rule 10 (b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, that is, the price at which the Applicant sold the goods to these two Units, ought to be considered as transaction value as prescribed under Section 4 (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. In support of their goods were also sold to other independent buyers during the relevant period, on the allegation that the Applicant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
