9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not at the prices on which the goods were sold in the open market. In the circumstances, if it is considered that the respondent as well as M/s. IAML are related person, in that circumstances also, duty cannot be demanded at the price at which M/s IAML has cleared the goods in the open market. In fact, when the price on which the goods are sold to independent buyers is available, the same is to be treated as transaction value. It is not the case of the Revenue that transaction value at which the independent buyers have purchased the goods be the transaction value, therefore, the impugned order having merits, accordingly, the same is upheld. - Decided against revenue - Central Excise Appeal No. 2898 of 2006 - Final Order No. 60097/2016 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isc. Expenses on behalf of each other; (e) convenience at which finance available with IAML are used for payment of Central Excise duty by IAFL; (g) IAML were referring to facilities available with IAFL as its own; (h) approximately 97% sales by IAFL were to IAML etc. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued to demand duty on the value on which M/s IAML has cleared the goods in the open market whereas the respondent has paid duty on the value at which the goods were sold to IAML clearance to IAFL. Initially the matter was adjudicated and travelled before this Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded back for quantification of demand vide order dated 7.7.99. The matter was again adjudicated and the said order was again challenged b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents and M/s IAML are related person on the following allegations : (a) directors either themselves or their relative are common in both the companies; (b) premises of one company are being used by the officers of other company; (c) Employees of one unit are doing the work of other company; (d) they are bearing misc. Expenses on behalf of each other; (e) convenience at which finance available with IAML are used for payment of Central Excise duty by IAML; (g) IAML were referring to facilities available with IAFL as its own; (h) approximately 97% sales by IAFL were to IAML etc. We have seen that in the case of Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. vs. C.C.E. Cus., Vadodara 2009 (243) ELT 449 (Tri-Ahmd.). In the said case al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is given by Shri H.S. Nagaraj, Manager (Sales Administration) on a letter head of M/s. Motorol Lubricants (P) Ltd., which clearly shows the inter-relationship of the units; (vi) funds of the assessee company is frequently used for payments of M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd., as can be seen from ledger account of M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd. in the accounts of the assessee company; (vii) no regular payments are received by the assessee company for the goods sold to M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd. and at the end of the year the outstanding amount to be recovered from M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd. is adjusted against the payments to be received from M/s. Motorol Lubricants (P) Ltd. as can be seen from the ledge account where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are owned by the only family to support the conclusion that the profits may by any of the companies would stay within the family only and therefore, the corporate veil had to be lifted. Even though several grounds have been given, none of these grounds show that there is a mutuality of interest between the companies and, there is no clear finding on this issue. In the absence of the clear finding that all the goods are sold only to/through a related person, there has to be a finding that either there is a flowback or the price charged is very low. While it has been mentioned that the price charged is much lower, there is no detailed discussion to show how much lower is the price, whether it is much beyond the normal commercial transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in details and found that the respondent is not a related persons to M/s IAFL. We further observe that in this case the respondent is making clearance in the open market also. As respondent is selling goods in the open market, the prices of the goods at which the goods are sold in the open market should be treated the transaction value but in the show cause notice it was not alleged against the respondent. We have also examined the show cause notice, in the show cause notice also the duty has been demanded on the concept of related person not at the prices on which the goods were sold in the open market. In the circumstances, if it is considered that the respondent as well as M/s. IAML are related person, in that circumstances also, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
