2013 (8) TMI 344

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Consultant For the Respondent: Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Mathew John The appellant is a firm of four partners one of whom was the Managing Partner. During the period July 2000 to September 2001, the appellant manufactured cotton yarn and sold about 93% of such yarn manufactured to M/s Jayakumar Fabrics which was a proprietorship concern of Shri. S. Jayakumar who w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... differential excise duty based on assessable value arrived at 115% of cost of production was confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with interest and penalty equal to the differential duty imposed under section 11AC of the Act. There was a penalty of Rs. 10,000/imposed under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 25 of Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 for the periods for which thes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ell goods to unrelated buyers at prices lower than the process at which goods are sold to M/s Jayakumar Fabrics. 7. Revenue's argument is that the two firms are clearly related persons. Once the buyer and seller are related, the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 do not envisage valuation based on assessable value of comparable goods and value has to be necessarily 115% of the cost of product....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC). 10. We have considered arguments on both sides. We find that the issue as to whether Rule 9 will apply in situation where an assessee is selling part of the goods to others and part to related party is no longer res-integra as can be seen from the various decisions quoted by the Counsel for appellants. Out of the four decisions quoted by Ld. AR for Revenue, the first t....