9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld does not pass the test of manufacture, as defined under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, since no new product other than mould emerges in the activity of modification of the mould - on repairing/modification of moulds, the demand confirmed against the Appellant is unsustainable. Applicability of the provisions of related person under the category of inter-connected undertaking - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the case of Dujodwala Products Ltd [ 2007 (3) TMI 27 - CESTAT,MUMBAI ], it is held that the Proprietaryship Concern and a Limited Company could not fall under the category of Explanation 2 (G) of MRTP Act, as the same applies to two body corporates and not one body corporate and a proprietary-ship concern. Thus there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge duty on modification/repair charges. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of Excise duty sort paid for the period from July 1997 to March 2002 with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order dated 18.02.2010, remanded the matter to the Commissioner to pass a speaking order afresh on all issues except on the issue relating to addition of value of ₹ 27.55 lakhs to the aggregate value of the clearances for the financial year 2001-2002. In de-novo proceedings, the learned Commissioner has confirmed a total amount of ₹ 3,72,249/- with equivalent penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore no manufacturing activity is involved on such mould repairing/mould modification. It is his contention that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Ampson Engineering Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai 2016 (336) ELT 361 (Tri-Mumbai) and Karthigeya Moulds Dies Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai 2008 (222) ELT 82 (Tri-Chennai). 5. On the issue of addition of value of ₹ 10,93,342/- to the aggregate value of clearance for the year 2001-2002 for the clearance to M/s MTIPL. He has submitted that to qualify as a related person where the units are inter-connected undertakings, as per Clause 2(b) of MRTP Act, 1969, it should be two body corporate and does not apply to two proprietary concerns. In suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on higher side when sold to M/s IKEA. In fact, only 2 moulds were sold at higher price than purchased from the Appellant. 7. The learned A.R. for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The issues involved in the present appeal for determination are: whether the amount collected by the Appellant from their customers as mould modification/repair charges during the period 1997 to 2002 be added to the aggregate value of the clearances in determining the value of clearance; and also the price at which moulds were sold by their inter-connected undertaking M/s MTIPL, during the period 2001-2002 be considered in computing the ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
