9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Companies Act. Commonality of one Director does not lead to the conclusion that they are related as per Section 4(4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided in favor of the assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices of M/s. CICPL should not be considered for determining the assessable value of the assessee for clearance effected in the name of M/s. CICPL and differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,72,988/- for the period 01/04/1998 to 30/06/2000 should not be demanded and recovered from the assessee under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- paid by them should not be adjusted against the above demands; (iii) penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944; and (iv) interest should not be charged under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Nasik, vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,19,519/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also proposed penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nasik - III, confirmed vide his order No. 132/2001 dated 30/11/2001 demand amounting to Rs. 3,19,519/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, hence the appeals. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned orders has set aside the order-in-original No. 65/2001 dated 15/11/2001. He has allowed the appeals against Order-in-Original 132/2001 dated 30/11/2001 also without giving any finding on the issue involved in the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned SDR for the Revenue, who subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the statements, and other circumstantial evidence original authority has rightly confirmed the clandestine removal of goods and demanded the duty. 8. Learned SDR relied upon the CESTAT's decision in case of Ujwal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nagpur 2007 (218) ELT 221 (Tri.-Mum) and Gulabchand Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2005 (184) ELT 263 (Trib.) 9. On the second issue Shri Kishori Lal, SDR submits that M/s. MMWPL and M/s. CICPL are having common Directors and there is mutuality of interest between buyer and seller of goods. Therefore, they should be treated as related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and selling price of M/s. CICPL should be treated as assessable value. 10. On the third issue, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egularly destroyed. 12. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that department's reliance on statements of G.N. Rathi and Santosh Yadav is misplaced. G.N. Rathi is nowhere connected with the respondent and he has wrongly stated that he is factory incharge. In fact, he was only a student and happened to be present in the factory at the time of search. Similarly, Santosh Yadav is an employee of M/s. CICPL. In fact, Vijay Chandak is authorised signatory of the company and his statement was not recorded by the department. 13. Regarding issue of related person, learned counsel submits that there is no evidence to suggest that two limited companies are related to each other in any manner or one being subsidiary of the other. These are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's claim of regular destruction of production card strengthens Revenue's case. 16. It is claimed by the Respondents that Shri Girish Rathi was only a student and was not aware of day-to-day activity of the factory. We find that he has signed statement in his own handwriting voluntarily. Only in his reply to show-cause notice on 09/11/2000 he tried to retract the statement dated 30/03/2000. Retraction after the issue of show-cause notice does not help assessee's case. As regards statement of Shri Santosh Yadav, contention of assessee is that Shri Santosh Yadav is an employee of M/s. CICPL. Payment of salary for Santosh Yadav from M/s. CICPL may be for reason of administrative and accounting convenience. Moreover T L Sahu of Qualit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
