9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the open market to their related person. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of electrical apparatus. They were selling most of the their manufactured goods through Indo Asian Marketing Ltd. (IAML) and investigation was conducted in their factory on 8.11.1991 and after scrutinising all the records it was alleged that transaction between the respondent and IAML were not at arm's length as both of them appeared to be related person within the ambit of Section 4(4) (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as they were indulging in evasion of duty by following modus operandi. To allege both of them are related person, the following is alleged as under : (a) directors either themsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. As the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority with liberty to the party to raise all the connected pleas during the re-hearing, the adjudicating authority was duty bound to go into the issue afresh in respect of related person. As the adjudicating authority had not gone into this issue, therefore, we find that it is a fit case for re-consideration. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide on merit in respect of the issue involved in the proceedings. Appeals are disposed of by way of remand."" In remand proceeding, the id. Commissioner examined the issue of related person and thereafter held that the respondents are not related person and set aside the demand confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y difference in name of the company; (iii) the brand name is unregistered brand name owned by M/s. Motorol Lubricants (P) Ltd., a marketing agency of M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd. and the assessee company; (iv) both are group companies of 'Motorol' Group and the persons employed by one company are also looking after the work of other company, for example Shri V.K. Vota, Vice-President (Operation) of the assessee company is also looking after the production activity of M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd., Halol with no official status in the said company. Shri Rajendra Gandhi, Vice President (Marketing) and Shri H.S. Nagaraj, Manager (Sales & Administration) of M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd. are looking af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Lubricants (P) Ltd. are related companies floated with mention to evade duty. All these companies are having same premises for their registered corporate office at Motorl House, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara - 397007 with the same telephone, fax numbers, website www.motorolgroup.com and E.mail address "[email protected]." After examining the issue in that case, the Tribunal observed as under : "8. From the above, we find that the two most important aspects which are required to be considered and answered in affirmative for coming to the conclusion that MSO and MTL are related to each other have not been examined in detail. As per Rule 9, the concept of related person and adoption of price charged by the related person as b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orce in the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate and an alternative submission that the extended period could not have been invoked. In the light of several decisions of the Tribunal and the courts holding that there should be mutuality of interest and merely because there are common directors, common employees, same premises etc. two companies do not become related to each other, intention to evade duty and suppression of facts is to be clearly established by the Revenue. We find that the evidences referred to by the department are not sufficient to come to the conclusion and, therefore, on the ground of limitation also appellants succeed. Once, the duty demand is not upheld penalties also cannot be upheld." 3. We have seen th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
