2008 (7) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, for the Appellant. Shri V. V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we taken up the appeal. 2. The appeal is against a demand of differential duty of Rs. 98....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Value) Rules, 2000. The assessee contended that Rule 8 was not applicable as they had not only sold their products to M/s. WIMCO Ltd. but also to independent buyers during the above period. It was argued that Rule 8 could be invoked as a 'best judgment' method only where the excisable goods were sold to, or through, related persons. To sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elated, the transaction value should be accepted, if the relation did not influence the price at which the goods were sold. It is submitted that the Apex Court's ruling is equally applicable to a case (like the instant one) governed by the post-1-7-2000 law of valuation. We have heard the learned JCDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 3. The facts of this case a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds are sold has been influenced by the "relationship" between the buyer and the seller. Thus the Apex Court's ruling, impliedly, rules out the applicability of best judgment assessment method to a case where the assessee is "related" to the buyer but such "relation" has not influenced the price at which the goods are sold. The Tribunal's Larger Bench decision is explicit on this point. It has been....