9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as precedent. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I v. Ever shine Engineering Works [2000 (4) TMI 366 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] the necessity of applying ratio of precedent decision in analogous circumstances has been highlighted. For such an exercise to be completed, it is necessary that the impugned order be set aside and the matter remanded back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of the facts of mutuality of interest and, thereafter, decide on the application of the relevant valuation provision. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/964/2007 - A/85885/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri NN Prabhudesai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ablished, mutuality of interest requires investment in the shares of each other. 3. In the grounds of appeal, this narrow view of insistence on share capital investment in each other being the sole criteria for determination of mutuality of interest has been contested by reiterating the evidences highlighted in the show cause notice and the common ownership. Further, reliance is placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta [1998 (99) ELT202 (SC)]. 4. None appeared for respondent. We have heard Learned Authorized Representative who drew attention to the definition of 'interconnected undertaking' in section 2 of Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or a buyer, to see it was not wearing that mask of not being treated as related person when, in fact, both, the manufacturer and the buyer, are in fact the same persons. Under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, value of the excisable goods shall not be deemed to be normal price thereof, i.e., the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, if the buyer is a related person and price is not the sole consideration for sale. As to who is a related person, we have to see its definition of Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. It is not only that both, the manufacturer and the buyer, are associated with each other for which corporate veil m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n change but that is the very purpose to lift the veil to find out if the two companies are associated with each other. Law is specific that when duty of excise is chargeable on the goods with reference to its value than the normal price on which the goods are sold shall be deemed to be the value provided (1) the buyer is not a related person and (2) the price is the sole consideration. It is a deeming provision and the two conditions have to be satisfied for the case is to fall under clause (a) of Section 4(1) keeping in view as to who is the related person within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 4(4) of the Act. Again if the price is not the sole consideration, then again clause (a) of Section 4(1) will not be applicable to arrive at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
