9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2006 - 294-297/2010, - Dated:- 8-2-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V. Raja Ram, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. All these appeals are filed against common orders in appeal No. 54 to 57/2005 (V-II)-C.E., dated 28-11-2005. Hence these are disposed of by common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are as follows : M/s. Sarita Steel Industries ltd., (hereinafter referred to as SSIL) are manufacturers of iron and steel products falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos. 7210.90, 7214.9, 7207.90 and 7204.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. SSIL is said to belong to GER Vasavi Group Industries. The group consists of following industries. (I) Sri Vasavi Industries Ltd., Rajam (II) Ferro Alloys Project, Calcutta (III) Sarita Steel Mills Ltd., Rajam (IV) Sri Sarita Synthetics Ltd., Rajam (V) Sri Vasavi Florex Ltd., Bangalore (VI) Sri Sarita Steels Industries Ltd., Visakhapatnam Sri Vasavi Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as SVIL) Visakhapatnam has another branch at Rajeevnagar, Visakhapatnam where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (1) Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE C, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 244 (S.C.) (2) CCE, Surat v. Besta Cosmetic Ltd., 2005 (183) E.L.T. 132 (S.C.) (3) UOI Others v. Atic Industries Ltd., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.) (4) CCE C, Mumbai v. Ralliwolf Ltd., 1998 (100) E.L.T. 528 (T) (5) Automotive Axles Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 706 (Tri.-Bang.) (6) Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd., v. CCE, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 120 (T) (7) CCE Bangalore v. BPL Sanyo Utilities Appliances, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 398) He would submit that the question of limitation will also arise as the demand is for the period 3-12-1998 to 30-6-2000 and show cause notice was issued on 17-11-2003. He would submit that during the relevant period, appellants have been filing RT 12 returns with the authorities regularly. 7. Learned DR on the other hand would submit that there is mutuality of interest. It is his submission that appellant M/s. SSIL had exhausted their quota of steel allotted to them by M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and hence procured steel which has been allocated to M/s. SVIL at a nominal profit margin of Rs. 100/- per MT to M/s. SVIL. It is the submission t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. NRIs 4,32,300 1.34 10. Public (Others) 27,78,180 8.61 Grand Total 3,22,56,570 100 10,60,000 100 It can be seen from the above reproduced chart that the shareholding pattern of both the companies are widely dispersed and different. It is also undisputed that there are nominee directors from IREDA in SVIL, while SSIL does not have any nominee directors. Be that as it may, it is also on record that M/s. SVIL has vide range of shareholding pattern in the form of body corporates and individuals and NRIs. It is undisputed that both the companies are listed as limited companies. We find that the only bone of contention for the revenue is that raw material obtained by M/s. SVIL from Visak Steel plant was sold steel to M/s. SSIL at a nominal profit margin of Rs 100/- per MT. We also find from the records that M/s. SSIL procured steel from Goel Steel at the same price. The question of related persons as is sought to be applied in these cases before us, is now squarely settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., (supra), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 1956 is a separate entity and, therefore where the manufacturer and the buyer are two separate companies, they cannot, than (sic) anything more, be related persons within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act is not the universal application. We have difficulty, for the reasons already stated, in accepting as correct this sentence. It appears to have been so stated in relation to and in the context of facts of that case. Therefore, the learned Judges, it should be added, remanded the matter for further inquiry into the facts. 10. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio that the issue is now squarely settled in favour of the appellants. Revenue has failed in this case to bring on record the mutuality of interest between M/s. SSIL and SVIL to press home the charge of depression of the price of the final goods sold by M/s. SSIL to SVIL. The only allegation that Mr. G. Eshwara Rao was a chairman of both the companies and two directors being on the board of both companies, cannot be the reason, for coming to a conclusion that both the companies are related persons, nor also the reasoning that SSIL procured steel from SVIL on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
