2018 (9) TMI 1887

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ramesh Nair, The case of the department is that since the appellant sold the goods to brother of the proprietor, therefore, they are related persons. Hence, the transaction value shall not apply for the purpose of valuation. Accordingly, the duty is chargeable in terms of Rule 8, i.e. 110% of the cost of manufacture. 2. Shri Amal Dave, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s the finding of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of records, we find that the lower authorities have demanded the duty on the ground that the appellant supplier and buyers of the goods are proprietorship of brothers. However, o investigation was carried out to bring evidence on record, there is no mutuality such as flowback of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X