TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue is before us. 2. The issue involved is whether the appellant and partnership firm concern M/s. Randeep Automobiles wherein HUF of Shri. B.G. Gandhi and M.G. Gandhi are the partners are related person and value at which the M/s. Randeep Automobiles sold the goods shall be treated as transaction value of the appellant. The adjudicating authority decided on the basis that Shri. B.G. Gandhi and M.G. Gandhi are the directors of the respondent's company and are the partners of trading concern of M/s. Randeep Automobiles. Respondent's goods are sold through the said trading concern and since Shri. B.G. Gandhi and M.G. Gandhi also directors of the respondent company both the concern are related as per the valuation provision effective f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that Ld. Commissioner has categorically recorded that Rs. 5 lakhs paid as loan to Mrs. Gopi Gandhi on which interest have been paid which is purely a commercial transaction and that cannot be reason for holding respondent company as related to partnership concern. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. We find that there is nothing on record that there is any flow back of any extra consideration from M/s. Randeep Automobiles to the respondent company. Respondent company is a private limited company and M/s. Randeep Automobiles is partnership firm therefore both are not related in the eyes of the law. The transaction of Rs. 5 lakhs as loan on payment of interest cannot be the reason for holding partnershi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of differential duty is for this price difference. The present case is squarely covered by the law declared by the Apex Court in Saci Allied Products Vs. CCE - Meerut[2005(183) ELT 225(S.C.)]. In that case the appellants were selling 65% of the goods to independent wholesaler buyers. Though the price for 'related person' was less, the duty was being paid at the price charged to independent wholesale buyers. It was held that- "Where sales are made by the assessee to wholesale buyers who are unrelated and also to buyers who are related then the price to unrelated buyers should be adopted on the basis for payment of Excise Duty even in respect of sales to related buyers. In such a situation, third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been incorporated in the act to check under valuation. When the price charged to alleged related person is same as that to independent wholesale buyers, no investigation into the nature of relationship is called for. The judgment discussed above was under Section 1 as it existed up to 30-6-2000. The provisions pertaining to related person incorporated in new Section 4 and Rule 9 of Valuation Rules, 2000 are in pari material with the provisions existing in the earlier Section 4. The period of demand in the instant appeal is January, 2000 to October, 2004 and the law reiterated by the Apex Court in Saci Product(supra) would continue to apply even after 1-7-2000. The declared by the Apex Court is binding on all the Courts and Tribunals. Furth....