TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellants), entered into an agreement with M/s. Asahi Glass Company Ltd. Japan, (Asahi for short), the manufacturer of float glass, on 1-5-89 for effecting stock and sale of float glass in India and also for acting as an indenting agent for the same product for third parties located in various nominated places in Eastern and Northern India. In terms of the agreement, the appellants shall purchase float glass solely from Asahi, its affiliates and/or subsidiaries or act as their sole selling agents for the various nominated places, in respect of the goods through Asahi's Singapore Branch. For acting as sole selling agent for Asahi, its affiliates and its subsidiaries in the nominated places, the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and placed on M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation, Singapore. On coming to know of the above imports, the Assistant Collector, straightaway passed an order dated 6-9-94 which was in the form of a letter, directing the appellants to make declaration before him in regard to change in the mode of invoicing, business, transaction, relationship etc. It was also directed in the said order/letter to file appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in case the appellants are aggrieved by the said direction. The said order was passed without issue of any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Aggrieved by the said direction/order, the appellants moved the Commissioner (Appeals) and unfortunately the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, the two imports cannot be compared. He has also pleaded that in the instant case there is no reason why the transaction value cannot be accepted as the appellants are not related persons and there was no evidence of any flow back or extra consideration. He also invited our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Premnath Diesels Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Calcutta reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 458 (Tribunal) = 2001 (42) RLT 252 and submitted that the ratio of this decision is fully applicable to the case on hand and he prayed for allowing the appeal. 4. The learned JDR for the Revenue defended the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and g....