2018 (11) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Method of Valuation - related party clearances or not - appellant were clearing 80 percent of the final product through two trading firms namely M/s Chetan Plastics and M/s Sanjay Packaging owned by Smt. Manjulaben Shah and Shri Sanjay Shah. He pointed out that the said persons were also Directors in the appellant s company - Held that - To invoke Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, it has to be first established that the two entities are related to each other. It is seen that the appellant is a company whereas the trading units are proprietorships. In these circumstances the two cannot be held to be related, in terms of section 2, clause 41 of the Companies Act, 1956, the definition relates only in terms of natural persons. Since, the foundation of the charge i.e, relationship, itself is not established, the other charges automatically fail - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of duty, interest, and imposition of penalty based on related party transactions.

Analysis:
The appellant, a plastics bags manufacturer, cleared products through two trading firms owned by individuals who were also directors in the appellant's company. The Revenue alleged related party transactions, invoking Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellant argued that the trading firms were independent buyers and Rule 9 could not be applied. They highlighted the difference in purchase and selling prices, indicating independent sales. The appellant emphasized that Rule 9 could only be invoked post its 2013 amendment for sales to non-related parties.

The Revenue contended that the trading firms were created to shift profits and avoid excise duty, citing differences in manufacturing and trading margins. They pointed out that the trading units sold products by numbers while purchasing on a weight basis, with clearances made directly from the appellant's factory. Additionally, the directors received remuneration from the trading units.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and ruled that to apply Rule 9, a relationship between the entities must be established. As the appellant was a company and the trading units were proprietorships, they could not be considered related parties under the Companies Act. Despite the apparent arrangement to avoid duty payment, the lack of a proven relationship led to the dismissal of the charges. The appeal was allowed on this basis, emphasizing the necessity of proving related party status for invoking Rule 9.

The judgment, delivered on 13.11.2018, clarified the legal position regarding related party transactions in excise valuation, emphasizing the importance of establishing a formal relationship between entities to apply relevant rules effectively.