9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Tubas is a Private Limited company. The Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 would not cover such a situation. In these circumstances, the basic charge in the show cause notice fails and thus, the demand made on the basis of this charge cannot be sustained. Moreover, it is seen that even if two are held to be related, in terms of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of SACI Allied Products Limited vs. CCE [2005 (4) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the value to be adopted should be of the goods cleared to same class of buyers - In the instant case, M/s. Tubas is buying substantial quantity of the total sale of the appellant. Since M/s. Tubas is buying 20/30% of the appellant s production, the price to any independent buyer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessable value as the price of the similar goods, cleared at the time nearest to the time of clearance of goods to the said alleged related person. The demand was confirmed by the lower authorities and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant are proprietorship firm and M/s. Tubas is a Private Limited and thus two are cannot be related in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. He pointed out that two cannot be considered a related person in terms of Section 2 (41) and Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld. Counsel argued that the transaction between the appellant and M/s. Tubes were pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mutuality of interest in the business of each other. He argued that in such circumstances adoption of price is the correct method to arrive at the assessable value. 5. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the Revenue is seeking to allege that the appellants and M/s. Tubas are related person and that in such circumstances the price of goods cleared to the independent buyers at the time of nearest to the clearance to M/s. Tubas should be adopted as per Rule 11 of Central Excise (Valuation Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 5.1 The allegation that the appellant and M/s. Tubas are related is based solely on the following assertion made in the show cause notice:- "During the course of EA-2000 Audit, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 6 of the Companies Act, 1956." We do not find any merit in the above allegation. In terms of the Section 6 of the Companies Act:- (B) Section 2(41) in The Companies Act, 1956: "Relative" means, with reference to any person, any one who is related to such person in any of the ways specified in section 6, and no others; (C) Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 : A person shall be deemed to be a relative of another if, and only if: (a) they are members of a Hindu undivided family; or (b) they are husband and wife; or (c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in Schedule IA. SCHEDULE - IA (i) Father. (ii) Mother (including step-mother). (iii)Son (including step-son). (iv) Son's wife. (v) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
