9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the goods sold to related person is same as the price at which the goods are sold to unrelated independent buyers. Therefore, it is found that the case heavily hinges on the fact of the issuance of supplementary invoices by the respondent to their related buyers. The learned AR submits during the course of hearing that in view of the Letter F. No. TC/KOP/372/12 dated 10.03.2022, it was informed that no supplementary invoices had been issued by the assessee during the period 2004 to 2008. However, this letter was neither before the adjudicating authority for consideration nor the respondents have not been given any opportunity to represent themselves and to show the evidence of issuance of supplementary invoices. Thus, reasonable opportunity should be given to either parties in the interest of justice. Therefore, the issue needs to go back to the adjudicating authority to verify the claims of the respondents with documentary evidence. Penalties - HELD THAT:- The show-cause notice has not substantiated with any evidence to levy penalty on Shri Chandrakant Vasudev Deshpande, partner of M/s Fie Spherotech except stating that they are actively participated in contraventions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers are common, the test of relative is automatically satisfied as one is always a relative to himself. The adjudicating authority decided the issue on the old definition of related person prior to 01.07.2000 on the basis of Tribunal s judgment in the case of Sudarshan Casting Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (217) ELT 428 (Tri-Del). The details of Directors of the respondent company and the related concerns are as follows: - Sr. No. NAME OF UNIT STATUS OF UNIT 1 Fuel Instrument Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ichalkaranji Engineering Cantre Pvt. Ltd., Pvt. Ltd. 3 Ichalkaranji Machine Center P. Ltd Pvt. Ltd. 4 Ichalkaranji Metalloy Founders P. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 5 Saroj Engineering Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 6 Technovision Pvt. Ltd. 7 FIE SPHEROTECH Partnership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 Arvind G. Deshpande M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 16 Ajit T. Kulkarni M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 17 Vyas Girish Dinesh M From the above, the Directors are common in both the companies and one of the Directors of their companies is also a partner in the partnership firm; the remaining partners in partnership firms are wives of two Directors in both the companies. The show-cause notice proceeded to fix the assessable value under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000; the present case is one where the goods are partly sold to related persons and partly to independent buyers. There is no specific rule covering such a contingency, therefore the residual Rule 11 was needed to be invoked and accordingly, the same was invoked; though the Rule 8 through Rule 11 and 9 has not been explicitly mentioned in the show-cause notice, but the pith and substance for fixing the value has been elaborated in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s should be treated as related to each other. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority and submits that the show-cause notice has been correctly set aside by the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 5. We find that the issue which requires consideration is as to whether the respondents have undervalued the goods cleared to their interconnected undertakings or related persons. It is the case of the Department that the interconnected nature of the companies involved are as follows: - Sr. No. NAME OF UNIT STATUS OF UNIT 1 Fuel Instrument Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ichalkaranji Engineering Cantre Pvt. Ltd., Pvt. Ltd. 3 Ichalkaranji Machine Center P. Ltd Pvt. Ltd. 4 Ichalkaranji Metalloy Founders P. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 5 Saroj Engineering Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Deshpande Rajiv N. M Sister s Son of Sr. No. 8 14 Yalgl Suahs Gajananrao F Wife s brother of Sr. No. 8 15 Arvind G. Deshpande M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 16 Ajit T. Kulkarni M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 17 Vyas Girish Dinesh M On the basis of the above, the Department is of the contention that they are interconnected undertakings. The learned Commissioner, however, held that no mutuality of interest has been evidenced between the alleged interconnected undertaking or related person and therefore, the re-determination of value is not required. The learned adjudicating authority has also relied upon the submissions of the respondent that supplementary invoices have been issued in respect of the sales to interconnected undertakings and have used together the price charged from the interconnect ted undertakings as comparable to the price at which the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In this case it is evident on record that a selling price to independent buyers is available. No reasons for rejection of the declared value are established. Learned commissioner has gone in to this aspect and spelt out reasons in detail as to why he doesn t consider the group companies are not related for the purposes of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Having gone through the findings of the commissioner, we are of the opinion that when the respondents are selling their goods at the same price to the unrelated independent buyers and the alleged related buyers or undertakings, the question of going in to valuation Rules does not arise. Such value can be adopted as a transaction value. 5.3. Moreover, it has been held by the adjudicating authority that if the supplementary invoices are taken into consideration, the price at which the goods sold to related person is same as the price at which the goods are sold to unrelated independent buyers. Therefore, we find that the case heavily hinges on the fact of the issuance of supplementary invoices by the respondent to their related buyers. We find that learned AR submits during the course of hearing that in view of the Letter F. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
