9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries Ltd. (M/s. BIL) in terms of an agreement for purchase of goods manufactured by the applicant. 3. Learned Senior Advocate draws our attention to the Stay Order in their own case relating to the earlier period vide Order S-133/Kol/2007 dated 1-2-2007 in Excise Appeal No. 573/2006 by which pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived. He submits that the said Stay Order has been extended by the Tribunal and the Department challenged the said Order before the Hon ble High Court and was not successful. Inasmuch as on the very same issue, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has granted stay from recovery of the dues, the learned Sr. Advocate seeks waiver of predeposit in this case and seeks decision on merits by linking the appeal which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the ld. counsel is that the Order is contrary to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Biscuits reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.). 5. The very basis for the finding appears to be unsound. The Stay Petition is allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of the appeal. 7. The said Stay Order does not discuss relevant facts in detail and does not indicate as to how the decision in the case of Pawan Biscuits is applicable. It is not clear whether the evidence relied upon in respect of earlier period and the findings of the Commissioner are substantially the same as in the present case. In view of the above, with the assistance of both sides, we have gone in detail through the agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision making powers over even the routine expenses incurred by the assessee. A perusal of the sale agreement indicates, prima facie, that the applicant has given extraordinary powers to M/s. BIL who are buyers of the final products. Under these circumstances, we are not able to appreciate the submission that the transanctions between the applicant and M/s. BIL are at arm s length. Further, in the price declaration filed by the applicant, information given relating to recovery of additional amounts towards the expenses is found to be prima facie wrong. The applicant has not been able to refute the factual basis of such findings. In view of the above, prima facie, the findings of the Commissioner that the applicant and BIL are related pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
