2016 (10) TMI 1191

luation Rules the transaction value adopted by the respondent cannot be rejected. It was recorded that no extra commercial consideration has been demonstrated. - Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Xerographic Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT] cannot be faulted only on the ground the concept of related person discussed therein was with reference to earlier Valuati .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

nue is that the respondent and M/s. M.K. Tubes India Pvt. Limited are related as both the units are having two common Directors. Accordingly, the transaction value has to be arrived at based on cost of production (110% of cost of production), in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the respondent to demand differential duty. The c .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Xerographic Ltd., - 2010 (257) ELT 11 (SC). 4. We find the only ground on which the transaction value of the respondent was sought to be rejected in the present case is that the two Directors were common for respondent-assessee as well as buyer. We note that the impugned order examined the statu .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the Act being interconnected undertakings and by no other accounts, namely (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-section 4(3)(b) of the Act. It was also noticed that the respondent and M/s. M.K. Tubes are not holding/subsidiary companies. The impugned order further examined and that there is nothing on record to indicated common/mutuality of business interest in these transactions. Finally, the impugned or .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X