TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4 of the 'Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - The law is well settled in as much the transaction value can be rejected only if both the units have mutual interest in business of each other. While holding company may have an interest in the subsidiary company, subsidiary company may not have any interest in the holding company. The rule contemplates that entire production needs to be sold t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter is of 2005. Appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused the records. 4. The issue involved is that the appellant, a subsidiary company of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai., are engaged in the manufacture of Sintered Products falling under various Chapter Headings of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant s were supplying 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra and Mahindra Ltd at the rate lower than the cost as per cost construction and without adding 15% by way of profit margin; as these companies fall within the category of interconnected undertakings in terms of definition given in sub-Section (9) of Section 2 of MRTP Act 1969 are treated as related persons. Demands were confirmed with interest and penalties were also imposed. 5. We find that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The said rule is reproduced below. Rule 9 of Central Excise: Valuation in case of sale of goods to or through related person When assessee did not sell excisable goods to unrelated parties, then the value of goods shall be normal transaction value at which these are sold by an assessee to buyers (not related person). 5.1 Plain reading of the said rule will indicate that the said rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
