9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party and the transaction between the appellant and ADH was not at arms length. The appellant is a partnership concern consisting of two partners - father (G.M. Shah) and son - (S.G. Shah) and ADH consists of four partners. The main partners of ADH are G.M. Shah, S.G. Shah holding 60% of shares and their respective wives held the remaining shares. There was no distinct co-relation between sales bills and the payment received thereof and in most cases credit balance appears in the name of ADH in the book of accounts of appellants. The appellants were selling their goods to M/s. ADH at a price much lower than the one ADH was selling to their wholesale dealers. In view of the relationship between the two firms the Department sought to adopt th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alculating the duty liability. He confirmed the demand for Rs. 20,06,016/- invoking the larger period of limitation under Proviso to Section 11A, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q(1) and demanded interest under Section 11AB. 3. None appeared for the appellant. Perused the records and heard the Ld. JDR Shri S.V. Parelkar. 4. The appellant in his appeal memorandum contended that larger period of limitation is not invocable as he had been regularly filing RT 12, Price list in proforma as required under Rule 173C w.e.f. 1-4-1992 and all other relevant documents. The price lists were approved by the jurisdictional officer; that all the information in regard to clearances and payment of duty was availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. We also uphold the contention of the Department that ADH is a related party and the transaction between the appellant and M/s. ADH have to be considered as related party transactions. The price at which M/s. ADH has sold the goods to their wholesale buyers constitutes the assessable value. Duty will have to be discharged on that value. Commissioner s reliance on Supreme Court s decision reported [1986 (23) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] and the Tribunal s decision reported [1994 (73) E.L.T. 579] will have to be upheld. 5. In regard to penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q we hold that even though a composite penalty was imposed, we observe the period of dispute being 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. Section 11AC could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
