2018 (11) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S.N. Gohil, Supdt., (AR) ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s Neeraj Polymers Ltd. against confirmation of demand of duty, interest and imposition of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that they are manufacturers of plastics bags classifiable under chapter 39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. He pointed out that they were clearing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of M/s Chetan Plastics and M/s Sanjay Packaging. Ld. Counsel pointed out that they also have independent sale. He argued that Central Excise Valuations Rules, 2000 prescribe under Rule 9 that only if the goods are not sold to assessee except to or through related persons, can Rule 9 be invoked. He argued that in the instant case, the part of the sale is made to independent buyers and therefore Rul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e production or manufacture of articles, the value shall be determined in the manner specified in rule 8." He pointed out that only after the introduction of new Rule 9 in 2013 can Rule 9 be invoked in cases where there are sales to persons other than related persons. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. He pointed out that manufacturing margin of appellant company is merely 2 % whereas t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise Valuation Rules, it has to be first established that the two entities are related to each other. It is seen that the appellant is a company whereas the trading units are proprietorships. In these circumstances the two cannot be held to be related, in terms of section 2, clause 41 of the Companies Act, 1956, the definition relates only in terms of natural persons. The appellant being a ....