9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent: Mr. S.K. Bansal, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Present appeal is directed against the order No.15-13/10 dated 23.05.2017. The facts relevant for the purpose are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of alloy steel ingots. The Department during the audit for the year 2008-09 observed that the appellants have cleared the said finished goods solely and exclusively to M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submitted on the appellant that this Tribunal has decided another matter titled as M/s. Magnum Steels Ltd., the same buyer as in the present case, wherein this Tribunal vide order dated 4th December, 2017 has remanded the matter for de novo trial directing the adjudicating authority to adjudicate about the question of their relationship as well as the valuation of the product. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant has contested the relationship with the mention that M/s. Magnum Steels is not the sole purchaser of the appellant and there has been sufficient evidence with the appellant to prove that their product is being sold to the other buyers in the market as well. We also appreciate that proceedings being ex-parte there has not been produced relevant documents as CAS-4 on record. Thus, valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radictory decision about the similar issue. 8. In the given circumstances, we hereby direct the appellant to provide all the requisite documents relevant for adjudication of both the above said issues, to the adjudicating authority below. Appellant accordingly, is directed to appear within a week of receiving the notice of personal hearing alongwith the document, if any. Appeal is allowed by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
