9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The Commissioner has demanded differential duty of over Rs. 1 crore from the appellants for the period July 01-Sept 03 by rejecting the transaction value of the goods cleared by them to a public limited company, namely, M/s. Velvette International Pharma Products Ltd. (VIPPL, for short), found to be rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PPL were the sole selling agents of the appellant-company in respect of the subject goods. Ld. Commissioner, in adjudication of the SCN, held the buyer-company to be related to the assessee-company in terms of the aforesaid provision and, accordingly, proceeded to determine the assessable value of the goods for the aforesaid period under Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules. Hence the demand of different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (41) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956, as per the Explanation to Section 4(3)(b)(iii). Under the Companies Act, as rightly pointed out by ld. counsel, the term relative has been defined so as to express a relationship between natural persons and not one between juristic persons. Unless the corporate veil of the assessee-company and the buyer-company is lifted, one cannot see natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Managing Director and his wife in the assessee-company were holding only 31% of the shares in the buyer-company and that a major part of the rest of the shares in the latter company was held, during the material period, by the public. This submission has been made as part of the challenge against the finding of relationship between the assessee and the buyer. 4. We have found prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
