TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of the transactions between M/s. Dipareena Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Legrand India Pvt. Ltd. should be re-determined in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 2. In the show cause notice issued to the appellant, the charge was that M/s. Dipareena Investment Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) and M/s. Legrand India Pvt. Ltd. (Legrand) were related persons and, therefore, the value for the purpose of assessment should be the price at which the related person, M/s. Legrand India Pvt. Ltd. sold the goods to unrelated buyers. Inasmuch as there is no mention of Rule 6 in the show cause notice and there is no finding also by the adjudicating authority, the finding of this Tribunal is incorrect and there is an error ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stainable in law. Reliance is also placed on other decisions, namely, Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad 1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC); Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise 1996 (88) ELT 641 (SC); Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd vs Collector of Central Excise, Guntur 1999 (106) ELT 12 (SC); and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad - III vs. Rohit Industries 2008 (221) ELT 421. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order of the Tribunal be recalled and the appeal of the Revenue dismissed. 3. The learned Special Consultant appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the finding of the Tribunal recorded in para 5.7, wherein it was held that there are certain additional c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., marketing facility of MDS being used for DIPL products, etc. had been in existence." 3.2 Similarly in paragraph 11 of the show cause notice it has been stated that: M/s. DIPL suppressed the facts that the prices, which it projected as transaction value as charged to M/s Legrand as a buyer is substantially short of various specified other considerations, which M/s. Legrand as a buyer borne or provided for in connection with further sale of such goods, that M/s. DIPL also suppressed the indirect consideration as specified above flown from M/s Legrand to it and mis-projected its reduced cost price as the transaction value with an ulterior motive to evade payment of the due CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regards the proceedings against the co-noticees, the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and therefore the matter can be agitated before the adjudicating authority. 3.5 Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no mistake apparent on the records of the case and the application for rectification of mistake be dismissed. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions by both the sides. 4.1. We find that the case of the Revenue was that M/s. DIPL and M/s. Legrant are related persons in view of the nature of the transactions between the two and also in view of the additional considerations which flows from M/s. Legrand, the buyer to M/s. DIPL, the manufacturer. One of the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing toGodrej Soaps Ltd. [2002 (148) ELT 161 (Tri.-Mum)] the Tribunal had held that Godrej Soaps Ltd. and the buyer Procter & Gamble Godrej Ltd. were related persons and, therefore, the price at which Procter & Gamble India Ltd. sold the soaps should be the assessable value of the soaps manufactured by Godrej Soaps Ltd. In appeal, the hon'ble apex Court [2008 (229) ELT 484 (SC)] held that the show cause notice did not allege that the additional considerations flowing from PGGL to GSL resulted in any relationship and, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal. However, the hon'ble apex Court directed the Tribunal to re-examine whether the additional consideration flowing could be included in the assessable value of the soaps manu....