TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: 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 80 percent of the final product through two t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. 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 Rule 9 could not have been invoked by Revenue. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue 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 the trading margin of M/s Chetan Plastics and M/s Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lished 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 company cannot be said to be related in that manner j....