9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Shastri, Asst. Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. SB(63)63/M-I/2009, dated 7-8-2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant manufactured glass bottles and cleared to M/s. Smriti Trading Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (STIC, for short) who, in turn, sold to independent buyers at higher prices. On verification of balance sheet, it was found that STIC was a company established under the same management of the appellant, i.e. Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. On this basis, it was alleged that in terms of sub-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, merely on the basis of same management, it cannot be concluded that the appellant and STIC are related companies. He further submits that in terms of Section 4(3)(b)(ii), (iii) or (iv), STIC does not fall under the said clauses. It cannot be treated as related person. He also submits that the department has not carried out any exercise to bring the facts on record to establish that both the companies are related persons. Therefore, it is his submission that both the companies are not related and, therefore, the transaction value at which the goods were sold by the appellant to STIC is the sole consideration and hence the same is the correct transaction value. He further submits that even if it is accepted that the appellant and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndulged in any act as provided under proviso to Section 11A to invoke the extended period. The issue involved is purely a matter of interpretation of the Central Excise Act and the Central Excise Valuation Rules and the appellant has acted bona fide. The suppression of facts cannot be invoked. He also submits that more than 90% of the sale of their goods are made to independent buyers and a very small percentage of goods were sold to STIC, i.e., as against the total sale of ₹ 50 crores, only sale worth ₹ 54 lakhs was made to STIC, which works out to less than 1.5%. This fact also establishes that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant and, therefore, proviso to Section 11A is not invokable and the entire de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
