TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules would require an assessee to adopt assessable value equivalent to 115% only where the entire production i.e. 100% is being sold to the related parties - In the present case, there is neither any allegation nor any finding in the impugned order by the authorities below that the appellant was clearing their entire 100% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa On matter being called, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant nor is there any adjournment request. We note from the records that the matter is being repeatedly coming up before the Tribunal and the appellant has not presented himself for hearing. In the above background, we have heard the learned AR and have gone through the impugned order as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - for the period 2001-02. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 3. On going through the impugned order as well as replies filed by the appellant before the authorities below and appeal memo filed before the Tribunal, we note that the appellant, apart from contending t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balance production was cleared to the independent wholesale parties and only a part was being sold to the alleged related person. 4. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. - 2007 (209) ELT 185 Tri.-LB) has held that Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules would require an assessee to adopt assessable value equivalent to 115% only where the entire production i.e. 100% is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losing the said fact to the Revenue or were not maintaining the statutory records. In such a scenario, no malafide can be attributed to the appellant so as to justify invokation of longer period of limitation. 5. In view of above, we find no merit in the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalties. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
