2017 (4) TMI 989 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - related party transaction - whether the appellant and partnership firm concern M/s. Randeep Automobiles wherein HUF of Shri. B.G. Gandhi and M.G. Gandhi are the partners are related person and value at which the M/s. Randeep Automobiles sold the goods shall be treated as transaction value of the appellant - Held that - there is nothing on record that there is any flow back of any extra consideration from M/s. Randeep Automobiles to the respondent company. Respondent company is a private limited company and M/s. Randeep Automobiles is partnership firm therefore both are not related in the eyes of the law. The transaction of ₹ 5 lakhs as loan on payment of interest cannot be the reason for holding partnership and private limited as related person - value of M/s. Randeep Automobiles cannot be adopted as assessable value of the respondent company - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Determining whether two entities are related persons for the purpose of assessing excise duty based on the valuation provisions effective from 2000.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) regarding the assessable value of goods sold by a partnership firm, M/s. Randeep Automobiles, in which certain individuals were partners, for the purpose of charging excise duty by the respondent's company. The adjudicating authority considered the partnership firm and the respondent company as related persons due to common directors and partners. The issue revolved around whether the goods' sale value by the partnership firm should be treated as the assessable value of the respondent company.

The Revenue contended that both entities were related persons under the valuation provisions of 2000 since the partners of the partnership firm were also directors in the respondent company. On the other hand, the respondent argued that being a private limited company and a partnership concern with common directors did not automatically classify them as related persons. The respondent highlighted a payment made to one of the partners of the partnership firm as a commercial transaction and not a basis for considering the entities related.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found no evidence of any additional consideration flowing back from the partnership firm to the respondent company. It was established that the two entities were not related in the eyes of the law as the respondent was a private limited company while the partnership firm operated differently. The Tribunal emphasized that a loan transaction between the entities should not be the sole reason for deeming them related persons.

The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Saci Allied Products case, emphasizing that when sales are made to both related and unrelated buyers, the price to unrelated buyers should be used for excise duty payment. The Tribunal also cited other relevant legal precedents to support its decision. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision, ruling that the partnership firm and the respondent company were not related persons, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 08/03/2017.