9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out by Ld. Commissioner (A) for rendering the buyer a related person of the respondent in terms of sub section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act 1944, relationship as described in clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) has to be established and it is to be true that the buyer is also holding company or a subsidiary company of the assessee. There is no reason to consider the existence of outstanding amount as a reason for rejecting the transaction value including the trade discount offered to all. Working in the same premises or the trading firm using the logo and name of the manufacturing firm by itself are of no consequence to consider the transaction value as tainted. - Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1103/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (A) vide impugned orders allowed the assessee / respondent s appeal holding that there is no ground for demanding differential Central Excise Duty. Aggrieved by these orders Revenue is in appeal. 2. The Ld. AR elaborated on the grounds of appeal. He submitted that M/s. Seth Trading Company is a partnership firm with partners who are closely related to the Directors of the respondent company and should be considered as interconnected undertaking in terms of section 2(g) of MRTP Act 1969. The term relative shall have the meaning assigned as per clause (41) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956. As the partnership firm is constituted by the partners who are either wives or sons of the Directors of the respondent company, the discount al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Commissioner (A) examined in detail applicable provisions of law relevant to the issue and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent company and M/s. Seth Trading Co. are separate legal entities for all purposes and cannot be termed as interconnected undertaking or relative to each other. As correctly pointed out by Ld. Commissioner (A) for rendering the buyer a related person of the respondent in terms of sub section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act 1944, relationship as described in clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) has to be established and it is to be true that the buyer is also holding company or a subsidiary company of the assessee. 5. Regarding contention of the Revenue that certain outstanding amounts were shown pending on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
