TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch products are sold by STL in the open market – held that BTL and STL are not related persons - relationship of BTL and STL did not influence the price therefore, the transaction value between BTL & STL has to be accepted for valuation - 6221-6223 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2008 - Ashok Bhan and Delveer Bhandari, JJ. [Order].-1. Assessee-Bharti Telecom Ltd., respondent No. 1 herein, (fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been paying the duty on the price at which it was sold to STL. The second point taken by the revenue was that there had been clandestine removal of the goods and sale without paying excise duty. 2. Three show cause notices dated 3-5-2000, 4-5-2000 and 24-5-2000 were issued to the BTL raising demand of Rs. 2,28,99,251/-, Its. 9,73,66/- and Rs. 8,12,712/- respectively. 3. The assessing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al have been dropped vide Order No. 280/Ldh./03 dated 23-12-2003 and the same have become final. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue did not dispute the fact that the BTL sold the goods to STL at or about the same price at which it sold the goods to DOT and MTNL. Even if the STL is taken to be a related person to BTL (we are not holding so), it has not influenced the price at w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
