9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is supervision, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the persons are to be considered as related persons. Other points considered by the learned Commissioner also, in our opinion, do not exactly facilitate the conclusion that they are related persons. On both these issues, there is no supporting evidence cited by the Commissioner in the impugned order; the Commissioner has taken a view that prices are mutually agreed upon also contributes to his observations. - Appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour for complete waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted. - Stay granted. - E/26858/2013-DB, E/26985/2013-DB, E/26986/2013-DB - MISC ORDER No.2286 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed on QSP under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Penalties have been imposed on Philips and Mr. Raminder Singh Soin, Managing Director. 2. Heard both the sides. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the central excise duty demand has arisen on the ground that Philips and QSP are related persons and this conclusion has been reached on the basis of agreement and also on the basis of the conclusion that the QSP had not been paying any hiring charges for the machinery worth more than ₹ 1.06 crores provided to QSP by Philips. 3. We went through the agreement in question, observations of the Commissioner and conclusion reached by him and heard both the sides. We are on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials supplied by Philips shall be taken into account by QSP while arriving at assessable value or transaction value. (vii) The declaration of assessable value for the purpose of excise duty or for any other levy shall the sole responsibility of QSP. 4. After considering the above salient features of the agreement, the Commissioner has reached the conclusion that the price at which QSP has cleared the goods is not normal price since there is abnormal variation between the price adopted by the QSP and the price at which the goods are sold by Philips in open market and therefore value should be determined under Rule 9 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The first observation against the appellant is that Philips had provided machines on hire b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany when they entrust the work of manufacture to another manufacturer using their own design, engineering, drawings, technical know-how, etc., have to necessarily exercise control and supervision over the manufacture undertaken by the manufacturer for them. Just because there is supervision, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the persons are to be considered as related persons. Other points considered by the learned Commissioner also, in our opinion, do not exactly facilitate the conclusion that they are related persons. These are the clause relating to Purchase of Goods which provide that QSP will provide to the suppliers such as spares, components and subassemblies to facilitate Philips providing after sales service; the observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
