9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r related person M/s. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Vistar ), who, in turn, are selling UPS system to their customers and as such the price at which Vistar is selling the goods to the ultimate customer has to be adopted as the assessable value of the static converters. It has further been held that the value of batteries which Vistar is buying from the other manufacturers and selling along with the static converters procured from the appellant is to be added in the value of the converters. Further, the benefit of SSI exemption availed by the appellant has been denied to them on the ground that if the value of batteries is taken into account and the value at which Vistar is selling the goods to the ultimate custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value. The notice also proposed to add the value of battery purchased by Vistar from independent manufacturers and sold the same to their buyers in the assessable value of the static converters manufactured by the appellant on the ground that battery is a part of UPS. As a consequence of the above, small scale exemption was also proposed to be denied. The said show cause notice culminated in the impugned order by the Commissioner confirming demand of duty of Rs. 67,16,343/- (Rupees sixty-seven lakhs sixteen thousand three hundred forty-three only) against the appellant for the period January 1988 to 31st March 1992. In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) has also been imposed upon the appellant along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue against the said order of the Commissioner was rejected by the Tribunal as reported in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1017 except in respect of that part where batteries were brought to the factory of D.B. Electronics and cleared with the UPS system. For the said limited purpose, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority. He submits that the reasons given by the Commissioner in his impugned order are identical to the show cause notice issued to D.B. Electronics, which stands confirmed by the CESTAT and as such by adopting the same reasoning, it has to be held that the price at which goods are sold by Vistar cannot be made the basis for determining the value of static converters. 4. The learned advocate further submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraud etc. can be attributed to the appellant so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation of five years. It has also been argued before us that vide his earlier order dated 31-5-1999, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant proposing inclusion of value of the batteries which were sold to their customers by Vistar without bringing the same to the appellant s factory. 7. Shri R.B. Pardeshi appearing for the Revenue, supports the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and draws our attention to the various factors detailed by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order in support of his findings that there was financial involvement between the two units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is also seen that two of the directors in the appellant-company resigned from the board of directors by August, 1986. As such it is only two directors, V.G. Chapekar and H.P. Joshi, who were common directors in the two companies during the relevant period. The entire marketing was being done by Vistar, who also gave guarantees and provided after-sales services such as installation commissioning etc. Reference and reliance to some of the correspondence with the two companies indicating that the appellant gave some guarantee to the bank for procurement of loans or showing some transfers of money from the overdraft facility of Vistar to the appellant are all factors of common business relationship and normal commercial transaction and wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.Z. Electronics - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 689 (T) laying down that battery not manufactured by the assessee but only arranged to be supplied to buyers of uninterrupted power supply (UPS) as a trading activity cannot be held to be includable in the assessable value. To the same effect was the Tribunal s decision in the case of Siemens Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 422 (T). As such we hold that the value of the battery is not to be treated as clearances from appellant unit. As a result, the appellant unit would be entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption inasmuch as the same was denied only on account of enhancement of the clearance value on account of the above two factors and there is nothing on record to show that otherwise also th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
