TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tness of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his OIA No. C-Cus 492/2001 dated 9-8-2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the arbitrary loading of the invoice value by 20% by the lower authority without any basis and held it to be as not maintainable. However, he has proceeded to invoke Rule 2(2)(v) of the Customs Valuation Rules to hold that the oversees supplier is in a posi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated persons and in this regard relies on the Apex Court judgments rendered in the cases of CCE, Bangalore v. Gammon Far Chems Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.) and the Apex Court ruling rendered in the case of CC, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. - 1989 (41) E.L.T. A61 (S.C.) = 1989 (24) ECC 349 (SC). He also relied on the Tribunal ruling on the point of related person in the case of JKM Daerim Autom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comply with the same. Then the original authority had no other option but to proceed to decide the case. Therefore, both the authorities were justified in taking the stand. She also files a detailed written submission from the Commissioner supporting the action of the Department. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We are not in a position to support the vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence produced by the revenue to hold any mutuality of interest between the parties. Mere holding of equity shares does not make the supplier a related person as held by the Apex Court judgments noted in the above citations. The impugned orders are not legal and proper and the same are set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of this Order was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
