9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act, 1944. The decision in the case of Reliance Industries Products vs. CCE [2011 (3) TMI 704 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] relied upon where it was held that The three conditions are to be satisfied before it can be inferred the existing relationship namely, (i) there should be mutuality of interest, (ii) alleged related person should be related to the assessee as per Section 4(4)(e) even in the Act and (iii) importantly the price charged from the related person was not the normal price but a price lower than the normal price and because of extra commercial consideration, the price charged was less than the normal value - the appellants are not related persons in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 Certain advances given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ashok Jandal: The appellants have filed these appeals against impugned orders. As all the appeals are arising out of the same issue, therefore, all are disposed by a common order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s.Glory Hitech Ltd. and M/s.Countech Systems were engaged in the manufacture of currency counting machines during the impugned period. These appellants supplied the entire manufactured quantity to M/s.Jay Enn India (P) Ltd. except for the period 1997-98. The appellants were selling these machines to the trading company @ ₹ 60,000/- upto 31.3.1997 and from @ ₹ 40,000/- per machine and further trading company was selling these machines to banks for price ranging from ₹ 80,000/- to ₹ 1,23,000/-. It wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submits that the advances received are only for commercial purpose and price of principal input charged by the trading company is not on lower side. He also submits that even if the entire sale of production is made by one person to another person the same cannot be treated as related person in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kanchan Industries (supra). He further submits that the price charged from the bank cannot be treated as related persons as the appellant is not providing any service to the banks such as warranty, installation, commissioning, testing, after sale services, maintenance, etc. These expenses are borne by the trading company. Therefore, the higher price was charged from the bank as consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant Trading Company Relationship of Trading Company s Director Poonam Bhattacharya Neelam Chakraborthy Sister A.Bhattacharya (from 20.1.98 J.Chakarborthy First cousins 7. We find from the above constitutions of the firms that the appellant M/s.Glory Hitech is company and M/s.Countech Systems is partnership firm and the trading company is also private limited company. From the aforesaid constitution, it is clear that the appellants and the trading company are not related to each other in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. While determining the term related person' thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended by the learned Counsel that these advances were given as general business practice to the appellants and were adjusted towards the goods supplied by the appellants in the trading firm. We have seen that it is routine practice in the business that buyers of the goods give certain advances to the suppliers, therefore, it cannot be said that by giving mere advances to the suppliers are having interest in the business of others. It also alleged that the appellants have sold the goods to the trading company at lower price and the trading company has sold the goods on a higher price. We have seen that the appellants are selling the goods to the trading company at a agreed price an no additional benefit has been provided by the appellants to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
