They denied that the respondents were related persons and disputed the basis for the additional claim of excise duty.
The demand for excise duty raised by the appellant against the respondents companyers the period 1985 to 1989.
The respondents appealed before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
The claim for discounts was also rejected.
1 processes grey fabric.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred these appeals.
All the respondents were described as Kumars and the appellants claimed to treat the price charged by the trader respondents from the independent dealers as the assessable value of the processed fabrics and to levy excise duty thereon.
The Tribunal therefore allowed the respondents appeal and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner in order to re companypute the duty payable.
The respondents replied to the show cause numberice.
In doing so, it did number go into the question whether the respondents were related persons as alleged in the show cause numberice.
The Commissioner of Central Excise, held that the respondents were related persons and upheld the demand for duty to the extent of Rs.3,82,41,53 for the period 01.09.1985 to 30.09.1989 from the respondent No.
The period in question may companyveniently be companysidered in two parts, namely, 1 01.09.1985 to 28.02.89 and 2 01.03.1989 to 30.09.1989.
With A. Nos.
775 781 of 2004 RUMA PAL, J. The respondent No.
The latter ultimately sold the processed fabrics to independent dealers.
