2016 (10) TMI 1191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RDER B. Ravichandran, Member (T) 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 15.03.2012 of Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. The issue involved in the present appeal is valuation of goods cleared by the respondent-assessee to M/s. M.K. Tubes India Pvt. Limited. The case of the Revenue is that the respondent and M/s. M.K. Tubes India Pvt. Limited are related as both the units are having....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned by the provision of Rule 11, read with Rule 8 or 10 of Valuation Rules, 2000. It is the Revenues case that Rule 11 has been correctly invoked in the present case for determining a transaction value on cost construction method (110% of cost of production). Revenue also contested the reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Ahmedabad vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....corded that both were entities with separate share holding patterns. These two companies cannot be termed as relatives in terms of clause (41) of Section 2 of Companies Act, 1956. The impugned order concluded that the respondent and the buyer are related persons only by way of Section 4(3)(b)(i) of the Act being interconnected undertakings and by no other accounts, namely (ii), (iii) and (iv) of s....