2016 (5) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner : Shri G.R. Singh, DR For the Respondent : Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: These four appeals by the Revenue are against the order dated 23.10.2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the main respondent (M/s.M.B. Plywood Industries (P) Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of flush, doors, block board and shuttering ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dealing companies. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (appeals) vide the impugned order set aside the original order and allowed the appeals. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeals. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the background of the case and submitted that the two dealers are apparently linked to the main respondent in their financial transactions as they are preferred by the main respondent fo....

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 and examined the appeal records. 6. The only point for decision is whether or not the main respondent short paid central excise duty on account of adopting much less value than the stipulated by the legal provisions. We find that the case of the Revenue is mainly on the ground that the two dealers, who supplied items to UPRNN have realized much more amount than what they paid....