9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Govind Dixit, DR for the Applicants Shri Seema Jain, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: These two appeals filed by the appellant dealing with common issue are taken up together for decision. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of perfume liable to Central Excise duty. For sale of their items they were offering a discount of 10% to all industrial customers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were adjudicated by the original authority confirming the above view. On appeal the Commissioner (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 partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand strongly contested the grounds of appeal and submitted that there is nothing new in these grounds which were not examined by the Commissioner (A) in his impugned orders. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal papers. The short point for discussion is whether or not M/s. Seth Brothers (Perfumers) P Ltd. - respondent in these appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find that the sales pattern is declared by the respondent in terms of the Rule 173(C) which has been examined by the Commissioner (A). He came t the conclusion that there is no deliberate omission or commission on the part of the respondent with the intention to evade payment of duty. As such he held that demand prior to 15.09.2003 is hit by time bar. We are in agreement with the said finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
