9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se is made out on the allegation that there is undervaluation of the excisable goods cleared by M/s Asha Industries on the ground that the buyer namely IPCO Sales Agency is related to M/s. Asha Industries. It is found that manufacturer Asha Industries is a partnership firm and the buyer M/s IPCO Sales Agency is proprietorship firm - a proprietorship firm and the partnership firm even though the said proprietor is one of the partner in the partnership firm, both cannot be a related person. However, this is a highly debatable issue. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant manufacturer was partnership firm and the names of the partners are appearing on the registration i.e. Shri Indu bhai M Patel, Shri Devang bahi R Patel, Smt. Nayna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent : Shri R K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) RAMESH NAIR The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Asha Industries was a partnership firm comprising of Shri Indubhai M Patel, Shri Devangbhai R Patel and Smt. Naynaben M Patel, during the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Later during the financial year 2007-08, Shri Devangbhai R Patel and his wife Smt. Anitabrn D Patel were the partners of the firm. The firm was engaged in the manufacture of IPCO creamy snuff falling under chapter sub heading 240399.40 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory Nadiad since 2001. They obtained Central Excise Registration on 14.12.2001 in the names of the above Partnership firm. Names of above three per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partnership firm and a Proprietorship firm are a related persons. It is the submission that the partnership firm is independently a juridical person and not a natural person a juridical person cannot have a relative as defined in clause 41 of Section 2 of Companies Act, 1956 which definition of relative is adopted in section 4 of the Act. The definition of relative provided in Companies Act, 1956 is applicable only in respect of natural person and therefore the said definition has no application to the fact of the present case. In this regard he placed reliance on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of The State of Punjab Vs Jullundur vegetable Synd. AIR 966 SC 1295. 2.1 He further submits that the partners of the manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that on inquiry from the department, it was found that these letters were not recorded in the inward register of the department. 2.4 He submits that so long all the letters were acknowledged by the department and the genuineness of such letters were not questioned, merely because the concerned inward staff has not recorded the details of these letters in their inward register, It cannot be concluded that this letters were not submitted. In support of his submission that the entire demand is time bared, he placed reliance on the following judgments: The State of Punjab Vs M/S. Jullundur Vegetable Synd. - AIR 1966 SC 1295 Union of India Vs. Atic Industries - 1984 (17) ELT 323 SC Continental Chandigarh - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufacturer was partnership firm and the names of the partners are appearing on the registration i.e. Shri Indu bhai M Patel, Shri Devang bahi R Patel, Smt. Nayna ben A Patel. With this information the department was very well within the knowledge of the constitution of the manufacturer partnership firm. 4.2 The appellant from time to time informed the department regarding any change either in the manufacturer firm or in the buyer firm M/s IPCO Sales Agency. The said letters are scanned below: From the above letters, the department was kept informed about the partners and proprietor of manufacturer assessee as well as the dealer. With these information if at all the department was of the view that both are rela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired from the officer who put the signature on the letters submitted by the appellant. Therefore, in absence of carrying out such investigation or inquiry, the observation of the Adjudicating authority to doubt the above letters is based only on presumption and assumption, which cannot be accepted in law. 4.5 In the present case the demand was raised for the period 2002-06 to 2007-08 by issuing the show cause notice dated 30.09.2013 therefore, the entire demand is covered under the extended period of limitation. We do accept that the above letters were submitted by the appellant with the department whereby the department was kept informed from time to time about the constitution of the manufacturer s partnership firm as well as the buy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
