9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them the benefit of SSI exemption individually. It is the case of the Revenue that they are located on the same plot of land and have three common directors and were using the same office and telephone. It is also the case of the Revenue that in one letter-head of M/s.Bharat, the name of the appellant was also printed on the type right side. It is further the case of the Revenue that the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the two companies show that one amount went to the other - None of these facts, if true, would meet the requirement under section 4(3)(b) for the two companies to be called related persons. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - Excise Appeal No.224 of 2008 - FI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the two companies must be treated as related persons and where goods are sold through related persons, the transaction value is not applicable and the assessable value shall be valued at which the related person sells the goods (rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules). If the related person does not sell the goods, but uses them in manufacture of other articles, the value shall be 110% of cost of production. It was further felt by the Revenue that the clearances by both appellants and M/s.Bharat should be combined for the purpose of calculating the SSI exemption. Accordingly, a demand cum show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon to explain as to why a differential duty of ₹ 31,10,121/- should not be demanded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly or indirectly in the business of each other. (b) In the instant case the acceptance by the Commissioner that there is mutuality of interest in each other on the one hand and ruling on the other, that it will not be possible to describe the persons as being related persons inconsistent. (c) SSI exemption allowed independently to both the parties by the Commissioner is also not correct. 4. We have considered the arguments of appellants and perused the records. 5. It is not in doubt that the appellant is a limited company and so is M/s.Bharat Ingots and Steel Company (P) Limited, the alleged buyer. The two companies are different legal entities. It does not matter that some directors may be common between the two companies. Wha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... individually. It is the case of the Revenue that they are located on the same plot of land and have three common directors and were using the same office and telephone. 7. It is also the case of the Revenue that in one letter-head of M/s.Bharat, the name of the appellant was also printed on the type right side. It is further the case of the Revenue that the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the two companies show that one amount went to the other. None of these facts, if true, would meet the requirement under section 4(3)(b) for the two companies to be called related persons. In view of the above the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
