9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that M/s Aswad Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. (referred as M/s ASA) were issued with a show cause notice dated 09.06.2006, wherein it was alleged that M/s ASA and M/s Burnala Steel Industries Ltd. are related person and, therefore M.S. Ingots manufactured by M/s ASA and cleared to M/s Burnala Industries Ltd. for manufacture of rolled product out of them should be reassessed by re-determining assessable value in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 9 & 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 on the basis of 110% of the cost of production It was proposed in the said show-cause-notice to demand Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,63,85,223.65/- for the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06 under proviso to Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The duty demand in case of M/s M. Q. Steel Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 3,72,02,835.60/-. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.23/Commissioner/MRT-I/2007 dated 30.03.2007. In the said case also the Original Authority has dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The main ground of appeal by Revenue in all the three above stated appeals is that the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that M/s BSIL and the three respondents were not related in terms of Clause (i), (iii) or (iv) of Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 without discussing and appreciating, the allegations in the said show cause notice. 6. Heard the Ld. DR for Revenue w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, then the value of goods for determination levy of duty is the price at which said related person sales the said goods. It clearly means that if the goods are cleared to a person who is consuming the same, then the provisions of Rule 9 are not applicable. In the present case, show cause notices has invoked Rule 11 and for invoking Rule 11, it has taken assistance of provisions of Rules 8 & 9 of the said Rule. We find that neither the provisions of Rule 8 nor the provisions of Rule 9 are applicable in the present case. Therefore, the show cause notices are not sustainable. Since all the three show cause notices are not sustainable, in view of the above findings, all the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed. (Dictated & prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
