9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y fabrics + job work charges. The Appellant M/s GSML had supplied Polyester oriented yarn to M/s SPL on payment of duty, which was converted into Texturized Polyester Yarn by M/s GSML on job work basis for M/s SPL. The excise duty on the same was paid on landed cost of Polyester yarn and job work charges. Sometimes, such texturized yarn was re-purchased by M/s GSML. Show Cause Notices dt. 12.05.98, 15.10.98 were issued to M/s GSML and M/s SPL alleging them to be "related person" in terms of third proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act. It was proposed to demand differential duties on the value of difference between sale price to the "related person" and the value adopted by Appellant at the time of clearance of goods. The issue travelled upto Tribunal back & forth and this is the 5th round of litigation before us. In present appeals the demands are concerned only in respect of Show Cause Notice No. 12.05.98 and 15.10.98 for Rs. 60,31,775.30 + Rs. 24,15,440/- respectively and are concerned with M/s GSML only. 3. Shri Willingdon, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, submits that in case of demand of Rs. 24,15,440/- covered by the show cause notices dt 15.10.1998, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n heard by the adjudicating authority, who vide OIO confirmed the demands in respect of both M/s SPL and M/s GSML. However the adjudicating authority failed to consider that the demand against M/s SPL pertaining to SCN dt 12.05.1998 was not covered by the Tribunal's demand order as that case was pending with the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Appeal No. 652/2009. He also did not consider the fact that the demand of Rs. 24.15 lacs in case of M/s GSML was not covered by the Tribunal's remand order, as the Department had filed only single appeal No. E/243/2004 in case of M/s SPL only against common OIA dt 18.09.2003. The Appellant therefore filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 09.07.2013, looking to the apparent mistake remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with an observation that the finding of the adjudicating authority should not have been based on the finding made by his predecessor order which has become non-est. The adjudicating authority vide impugned OIO dated 08.02.2017 held that the issue related to question of determination of alleged relationship cannot be gone into as the said issue of related persons status was determined in OIO d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 834 (T) and Viny Royal Plasticoates Pvt Ltd Vs. UOI 2010 (258) ELT 339 (Guj). 6. He submits that the matter has remained in controversy since last 20 years and it was remanded four times earlier and yet the adjudicating authority has each time flagrantly disregarded and disobeyed the specific and emphatic directions given repeatedly by the Tribunal. He relies upon the judgments in case of Crompton Greaves Ltd Vs. CCE 2004 (60) RLT 156 (CESTAT), Simplex Engg. & Foundary Works Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE 2014 (310) ELT 395 (T), Dimensions India Vs. CC 2003 (158) ELT 325 (T) and Garg Steel Industries Vs. CC 1998 (74) ECR 508 (T) in support of his contention. He thus submits that the demand is therefore required to be set aside. He also submits that the demand under Section 4 (1) (a) as made by the revenue is not sustainable as the same is applicable only where the sale is through related person. That the price charged by them to M/s SPL is clearly equivalent to prices charged by them to the independent buyers and there is no major difference looking into the discounted prices and various expenses involved in case of sale made to independent buyers. He also submits that the demands are time barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is pending. In case of appeal filed by the Appellant, the Tribunal vide order dt 08.09.2010 remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for taking into consideration the grounds raised by the Appellant. This order also involved the appeal filed by the Department against OIA dated 18.09.2003 wherein M/s SPL was also implicated as Respondent. This order dt 08.09.2010 of the Tribunal has rendered adjudication order of 2007 otiose and the findings of the same could not have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority in subsequent proceedings. We find that the Tribunal remanded the case twice back to the adjudicating authority for considering the case afresh. However, the adjudicating authority on both the occasions relied upon the findings of 2007 inspite of the said order being rendered ineffective by the order dated 08.09.2010 of the Tribunal. It clearly transpires that the CESTAT's direction given in 2010 order was not followed by the adjudicating authority inspite of the fact that the adjudication order of 2007 was no more operative. We find that the adjudicating authority, in order to place reliance of 2007 adjudication order, had taken the ground that in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal lower price can be considered to be reasonable trade discount as M/s SPL was himself supplier of job work goods and was buying in bulk quantity which is not a disputed fact. Since there is no major difference between the goods sold to independent buyers and allegedly related person M/s SPL and the prices are comparable after taking into consideration the discount and other expenses, we do not find any reason to demand duty from the Appellant. The discounts by the Appellant to M/s SPL are normal business transaction as has been upheld by the Tribunal in various judgments in the case of CCE Vs. Indian Turpentine & Resin Co. Ltd -1989 (41) ELT 678 (T); Powertech International Vs. CCE - 2001 (45) RLT 230 (Cegat) ; Standard Electric Appliances Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise - 1986 (23) ELT 302 (Mad); Premabhai Chhibabhai Tangal Vs. UOI -1994 (70) ELT 515 (Bom); UOI Vs Hind Lamps Limited - 1981 (8) ELT 11 (Del). We are thus of the view that the demands raised against the Appellant does not sustain and are set aside. We also find that in the case of Show Cause Notice dt 12.05.1998, the period involved is April 1993 to March 1998 and the Appellants were under bona-fide belief that in ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
