TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also not disputed that impugned goods have been sold by the assessee to individual buyers. This being the case, price at which the goods have been sold to unrelated buyers will have to be taken as the basis for valuation and not as per the provisions of Rule 8. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/308/2011, E/292/2011 - Final Order No. 41502-41503 / 2018 - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate For the Assessee Shri K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Revenue ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that M/s.Best Cotton Mills Ltd., (herein after referred to as the assessee) ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules and accordingly, upheld the order of the original authority to that extent, with interest liability thereon. The lower appellate authority set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority. Aggrieved, assessee have preferred Appeal E/308/2011. Revenue is aggrieved by grant of relief for the period upto 12.02.2003 and dropping of penalty by the lower appellate authority and have preferred Appeal E/292/2011. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the assessee, Ld. Advocate Ms. Vishnupriya submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have applied the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries (supra) for the entire period. She also subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would be preferred. It is also not disputed that impugned goods have been sold by the assessee to individual buyers. This being the case, price at which the goods have been sold to unrelated buyers will have to be taken as the basis for valuation and not as per the provisions of Rule 8. This is also the ratio laid down in the case laws cited by the Ld. Advocate. In the event, we find in favour of the assessee. The impugned order to the extent of confirming the duty liability after 13.2.2003 cannot be sustained, hence we set aside that part of the order. We however do not find any infirmity with the rest of the impugned order. Assessee Appeal E/308/2011 is allowed and Department Appeal E/292/2011 is rejected. Appeals disposed of on above t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
