9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore both are not related in the eyes of the law. The transaction of ₹ 5 lakhs as loan on payment of interest cannot be the reason for holding partnership and private limited as related person - value of M/s. Randeep Automobiles cannot be adopted as assessable value of the respondent company - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/902 & 903/06 - A/86301-86302/17/EB - Dated:- 8-3-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. H.G. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Orders-in-Appeal No.AT/630 631/M-III/2005 dated 30-11-2005 passed by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iles and respondent company are more or less same for the reason that partners of M/s. Randeep Automobiles are the directors in respondent company therefore both are the related person and as per the valuation provisions of 2000, price at which M/s. Randeep Automobiles sold the goods of respondent company should be taken as assessable value. 4. Shri. H.G. Dharmadhikari, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is private limited company and M/s. Randeep is partnership concern wherein no independent person such as Shri. B.G. Gandhi and M.G. Gandhi are the partners. He further submits that even if the independent director of the respondent company are the partners of partnership concern then also both the concern, one being p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged to M/s. Randeep Automobiles were lower or depressed than the prices charged to other Wholesale Dealers/Government Agencies for 65% of the goods. This was reiterated by the appellants before the adjudicating authority at the time of personal hearing on 19.05.2005 as recorded in para 26 of impugned order. This is not contested by the adjudicating authority. M/s. Randeep Automobiles are buying only nearly twenty fine percent of the goods from appellant No.1 and rest of the goods are purchased from other manufactures. It is claimed by the appellants that they are in business before the appellant No.1 stated manufacturing and selling Automobile parts. They buy the goods in loose; pack them and sell under their brand name. The difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as a related person of appellant No.1 is a question of academic interest only. The adjudicating authority has relied upon the Apex court judgment in CCE Vs. I.T.E.C. (P) Ltd-2002(145) ELT 28C(S.C.). The ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the instant case in ITEC case (supra), the respondents themselves had been treating their other concern (M/s. International) as a related person and had been filing price lists in part -IV meant for related person. The Apex Court reiterated the law in CCE Vs. Besta Cosmatics-2005(183) ELT 132(S.C.). as follows. As for as the common Directors are concerned this court has in Alembic Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise Customs which is reported in 2002(143) ELT 244 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
