2017 (1) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e three appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Aswad Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. (referred as M/s ASA) were issued with a show cause notice dated 09.06.2006, wherein it was alleged that M/s ASA and M/s Burnala Steel Industries Ltd. are related person and, therefore M.S. Ingots manufactured by M/s ASA and cleared to M/s Burnala Industries Ltd. for manufacture of rolled product out of them should be reassessed by re-determining assessable value in terms of Rule 11 read with Rule 9 & 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 on the basis of 110% of the cost of production It was proposed in the said show-cause-notice to demand Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,63,85,223.65/- for the period fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....els Pvt. Ltd. & M/s BSIL were related persons. The duty demand in case of M/s M. Q. Steel Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 3,72,02,835.60/-. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.23/Commissioner/MRT-I/2007 dated 30.03.2007. In the said case also the Original Authority has dropped the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The main ground of appeal by Revenue in all the three above stated appeals is that the Adjudicating Authority has merely held that M/s BSIL and the three respondents were not related in terms of Clause (i), (iii) or (iv) of Section 4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 without discussing and appreciating, the allegations in the said show c....