TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were filing all the requisite statutory returns wherein the entire facts were being disclosed by them. If that be so, then the extended period would not be available to the Revenue. However, the said contention of the learned advocate requires verification. Inasmuch as the matter stands remanded, he would examine the fact of limitation afresh after going through the appellant’s submission and the various documents, etc. said to have been filed by them with the Revenue. - E/MISC/294/2010 in E/813/2007-DB, E/822/2007-DB, E/823/2007-DB, E/824/2007-DB, E/825/2007-DB, E/813/2007-DB, E/822/2007-DB, E/823/2007-DB, E/824/2007-DB, E/825/2007-DB - Final Order No. 20234-20238 / 2016 - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through related persons. For the above proposition, they relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2007 (209) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.-LB). However, the original adjudicating authority did not accept the above contention and confirmed the demand, as proposed in the show-cause notice, even though he observed that Revenue cannot directly adopt Rule 9 and Rule 10, without first exhausting the previous Rules. On appeal, Commissioner (A) observed that Rule 4 is the proper Rule, which is required to be adopted in those cases where the goods are partly sold through related persons and partly through independent wholesale buyers, but still confirmed the demand by making the following observations: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the factory gate sale price to individual buyers which has to be adopted even in respect of sales to the trading units, he went ahead and confirmed the demand. We find that the said order of Commissioner (A) is self-contradictory order. On the one hand, he is accepting the appellants stand that Rule 4 is required to be followed and on the other hand, he proceeded to confirm the demand. We also note that the said part of the impugned order of Commissioner (A) does not stand challenged by the Revenue. Otherwise also, we find force in the findings of Commissioner (A) on the question of law that it is Rule 4 which would be required to be applied. In the ordinary course, we would have remanded the matter to Commissioner (A) himself but inasm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
