2017 (10) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate for the Appellants Shri M R Sharma, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of GI Wire/ HB wire falling under chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They were clearing the finished products to related parties viz., Sona Wires Pvt. Ltd., Raipur as well as M/s. Kunal Loha Chem Pvt. Ltd., Raipur. 2. During the cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri M R Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. Learned Counsel during the course of arguments submitted that there is no basis in law to value the goods cleared to related parties on the basis of costing. The related companies were independent entities. No evidence has been cited by the Revenue to establish mutuality of interest between the appellant an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ought to disregard the transaction value and has proposed to redetermine the value on the basis of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, by resorting to Costing of the goods on the basis of CAS 4 standard. Even though the two buyers are interconnected undertakings as per section 4(3)(b)(i) of Central Excise Act, merely because they are interconnected undertakings, the transaction value cannot be rejected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal and it was held that the transaction value has to be accepted unless the manufacturer and buyers have interest in the business of each other, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd. - [2015 (322) ELT 389 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that expression "in the business of each other" clearly denotes that in....