2026 (7) TMI 1933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TECHNICAL) Shri Suyog Bhave, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ranjan Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Heard both sides and perused the case records. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture of MS pipes, falling under Chapter Heading No. 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted by the audit team, the Department had concluded that the goods were grossly undervalued on the ground that M/s SECL is an associated enterprise and related person to the appellant. Thus, the Department had concluded that the value under Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 should be followed on the basis of cost-construction method. The show cause notice issued in this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e demand confirmed in the adjudication order. He further submitted that though the said order dated 04.09.2002 was placed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the present appeal, but the said order was not taken into cognizance while passing the impugned order. 5. A reading up of the order-in-appeal dated 04.09.2002 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o decide the appeal by waiving the pre-deposits." 6. We also find that against the order-in-appeal dated 04.09.2002 (supra), Revenue had filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/1849/WZB/06-C.III/EB dated 16.06.2006 has rejected the appeal filed by Revenue, upholding the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the fact that in identical ....