9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... den Silk Mills Ltd. as well as for other persons. In a show cause notice it was alleged that relationship between these two Companies was not that of a Trader and the Processor but that these two Companies were related persons and therefore in terms of Section 4 (1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. The value of the processed fabrics cleared by M/s. Special Prints Ltd. should be determined in terms of the price at which the goods were sold by M/s. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. A number of grounds were enumerated in the show cause notice bringing out the relationship between these two companies. It was alleged that during the period April 1993 to March 1998, on this ground, duty amount to Rs. 21,37,51,202/- had been evaded. A separate transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uck owner and of Rs. 5 lakhs each on M/s. Garden Associates and M/s. Vareli Associates owners of the goods under seizure. 3. We have heard Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala, Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the applicants and Smt. Reena Arya for the Revenue. 4. Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala relies upon the following three Judgments : (i) S. Kumar Ltd. Ors. v. CCE, Indore - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal) = [2000 (37) RLT 606 (CEGAT)] (ii) Prafful Industries Ltd. and Others v. CCE, Mumbai-I - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal-LB) = [2000 (38) RLT 125 (CEGAT-L.B.)] (iii) Pawan Biscuits Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.)]. 5. In the first two Judgments the issue inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts Ltd. judgment was applied even in the face of the relationship. The Judgment in the case of Prafful Industries Ltd. is given by a three-Member Bench, the ratio of which is necessarily to be followed by a two-Member Bench. 7. Shri J.F. Pochkhanwala submits that even the existence of the relationship is not real. He recounts the various grounds given in the proceedings alleging relationship. The first ground is that there are common Directors in both the companies. A chart has been placed on record by the applicants which shows the names of the Directors in both units over the period covered in the show cause notice. We find that not a single name is common in both companies. It would appear that the promoters were common but that does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat on this ground the assessees have made a strong case for waiver. 8. The same logic would apply for the confirmation of duty for M/s. Garden Silk Mills for the duty allegedly short levied on the yarn texturised. 9. We, therefore, grant waiver of the duties confirmed and the penalties imposed on the two appellant units and their persons incharge and stay recovery thereof. Since the liability to confiscation of the goods was alleged on the ground of underinvoicing we waive the pre-deposit of penalty by the two traders as well as by the transporters. 10. Shri Willingdon prays for the stay of collection of interest. We find this request premature. The Commissioner had ordered payment of interest on delayed payment on Central Excise dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
