TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd J. Shankar Raman, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we taken up the appeal. 2. The appeal is against a demand of differential duty of Rs. 98,11,438/- for the period July, 2005 to March, 2007 in respect of goods cleared to M/s. WIMCO Ltd., as also against equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 7-1-2008, the learned Commissioner raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Bharti Telecom Others [2008 (226) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2008-TIOL-124-SC-CX], wherein it was held that, even if the assessee and their buyer were related, the transaction value should be accepted, if the relation did not influence the price at which the goods were sold. It is submitted that the Apex Court's ruling is equally applicable to a case (like the instant one) governed by the post-1-7-2000 law of valuation. We have heard the learned JCDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 3. The facts of this case are, apparently, similar to those of Bharti Telecom case cited by the learned counsel. The ruling of the apex court is to the effect that, even if the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority by the assessee in their endeavour to establish that no favoured treatment was shown to the "related" buyer. Obviously, M/s. WIMCO Ltd., being a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the assessee, the "relationship" of the assessee to the buyer is an admitted fact. The question is whether this "relationship" influenced the price of the goods sold to M/s. WIMCO Ltd. This question should be addressed with reference to the price actually charged for comparable quantities of goods sold to independent buyers. This exercise was not even attempted by the learned Commissioner. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are constrained to remand the case to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication, leaving all issues open. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
