2017 (10) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - mutuality of interest - Refrigerators and Deep Freezers - enhancement of value - Held that - similar matter was decided by the Tribunal in case of CCE, Bangalore vs. M/s. BPL Sanyo Utilities and Appliances Ltd. 2002 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, BANGALORE , whereunder it was observed that the assessee and M/s. BPL are separate legal entities and the transaction between the two is on principal to principal basis and there is no mutuality of interest between the two - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dropping duty demand on Refrigerators and Deep Freezers.
- Allegation of wide price variation between Respondent and buyer.
- Mutuality of interest between Respondent and buyer.
- Demand confirmed by Assistant Commissioner.
- Appeal before Commissioner (A) leading to dropping of demand.
- Revenue's appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the dropping of duty demand on Refrigerators and Deep Freezers by the Respondent. The dispute arose due to the alleged wide variation in prices between the Respondent and the buyer, M/s. BPL Ltd. The Revenue contended that there was a mutuality of interest between the two entities, leading to a duty demand. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, but the Commissioner (A) dropped it, prompting the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s. BPL Sanyo Utilities and Appliances Ltd., where it was established that the entities were separate legal entities transacting on a principal to principal basis. The Tribunal highlighted various aspects, including the nature of transactions, independence of companies, and lack of influence by individuals, to support the conclusion of no mutuality of interest between the Respondent and M/s. BPL Ltd.

The Tribunal also addressed specific documents and letters relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner to support the duty demand. It was emphasized that the transactions were regular sales between the entities and not transfer of goods within the same company. Additionally, the Tribunal considered legal precedents and decisions supporting the Respondent's position, further strengthening the case against the duty demand.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of both the Tribunal in the previous case and the Supreme Court, which found no grounds to interfere with the order passed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order dropping the duty demand was sustained. The judgment was pronounced in open court on the specified date.