9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under a brand name "Anabond". The Managing Director and Director of DEPL are S/Shri A.V. Ramanujam and J. Vijayakumar, respectively. DEPL were availing value based duty exemption under various notifications during the period from 1988 in respect of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them. M/s. Anabond Ltd. (APL) (Public Ltd. company from 1-74998) also manufacturing glues, adhesives, sealants and sealant compounds all under a brand name "Anabond". The Managing Director and Director of APL are S/Shri Vijayakumar and A.V. Ramanujam, respectively. M/s. APL were also availing value based duty exemption in respect of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them. Sixteen show cause notices were issued to the appellants. Initially th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty of Rs. 30, 64,186/- on the ground that M/s. APL is a related person of M/s. DEPL within the meaning of Section 4 (4)(c) of the C.E. Act, 1944 and in terms of Section 11A of the Act. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 only on M/s. DEPL under Rule 173Q of the C.E. Rules, 1944. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. APL and Rs. 25,000/- each on S/Shri J. Vijayakumar and A.V. Ramanujam, in terms of Rule 209A. The appellants strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3. S/Shri. R. Raghavan and T. S. Balasubramanian, ld. Advocates appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, ld. SDR for the Revenue. 4. The Id. Advocates urge the following grounds: The Commissioner erred in holding that DE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen such a price shall be valid even in respect of sale to a related person. 8. The Commissioner though has listed the agreement entered between DEPL and APL in para 13.3 of the impugned order has failed to appreciate the scope of each one of these agreement and has unilaterally drawn a conclusion that existence of this agreement would prove that DEPL and APL are related persons. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the very existence of various agreements as between DEPL and APL only go to prove their independent status and if they are related persons and inter dependent on each other there is no case for entering into agreements. 9. Various Courts have held merely because the products are manufactured as per the specificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngalore - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 341 (T) We also find that the Commissioner recognises the fact that APL DEPL are independent legal entities. One does not hold the shares of the other. DEPL has paid for the technology transfer supplied to APL only at negotiated price. Further, there is no evidence of financial flow back form DEPL to APL. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to establish any mutuality of interest the units in the business of each other. We also find that DEPL has sold goods M/s. Simpson Co. Ltd., an independent buyer. It is not the case of the Revenue that the price at which DEPL sold the goods to APL is abnormally low. Even if two units are related, if that relationship has not influenced the price and when the price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
