2014 (2) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earances are to M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. during period from 01/6/05 to 01/7/05 which was using the goods for manufacture of their final products. It was also found that the respondent and M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. were interconnected undertakings within the meaning of this term as defined in Section 2 (41) of the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore, the respondent and M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. appeared to be related person in terms of Section 4 (3) (b) of the Central Excise Act. The department, therefore, was of the view that the assessable value of the goods cleared by the respondent to M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. should be determined under Rule 10 readwith Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 on the basis of 110....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heard both the sides. 3. Shri B.B. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that since partners of the respondent are also Directors in M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd., the respondent and M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. would be interconnected undertakings in terms of the definition of this term as given in Section 2 (41) of the Companies Act and hence in terms of the provisions of Section 4 they have to be treated as related persons. He also pleaded that the respondent and M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. have mutuality of interest and, therefore, they are also related in terms of Clause (iv) of Section 4 (3) (b) and, for this reason, they have to be treated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs in terms of its definition of this term as given in Section 2 (41) of the Companies Act and the show cause notices, nowhere discusses as to how the conditions prescribed in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 are satisfied, that is either the buyer is holding company or subsidiary company of the assessee or the two are so connected that they are also related in terms of Clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. There is absolutely neither any allegation, nor any evidence to show that the respondent and M/s P.S. Steel Tubes (P) Ltd. have interest in the business of each other. For applying Rule 10 readwith Rule 9 and Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, the mere the fact....