TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l duty applying Rule 9 readwith Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice as well as both the lower Authorities proceeded against the appellant to recover differential duty only on the ground that the appellants are relative of M/s Neminath in terms of Section 4 (3) (b) (ii). The said provision is applicable only if the parties are relative as per Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Section 4 (3) (b) (ii), and without examining the facts of the present case applied a completely inapplicable provisions of law to decide the valuation issue - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 2671 of 2011 - Final Order No. 53406/2017 - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - Hon ble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) AND Hon ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... differential duty of ₹ 1,03,222/- and ₹ 13,555/- Penalty of equivalent amount was also imposed on the appellant both under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (main appellant and the Director of the appellant). 2. When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of the appellant, in spite of notice. We note that on earlier occasions, 20/03/2017 and 18/04/2017, also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a partnership firm. The show cause notice as well as both the lower Authorities proceeded against the appellant to recover differential duty only on the ground that the appellants are relative of M/s Neminath in terms of Section 4 (3) (b) (ii). The said provision is applicable only if the parties are relative as per Section 2 (41) of the Companies Act, 1956. We note that a juristic person, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
