The case involved determining if certain companies were distinct ...

Tribunal Rules Companies Not Related; Dismisses Duty Demand for Lack of Evasion Evidence and Limitation Bar.

June 24, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

The case involved determining if certain companies were distinct legal entities or related persons under Sec.4(3)(b)(i) and (iv) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant's business interest in the group companies was not established, thus rejecting the contention that they were related persons. The Tribunal also held that the price set by the appellant based on prevailing market rates constituted the "Transaction Value" under Sec. 4(3)(d), and there was no evidence of any extra commercial considerations. Regarding the limitation period, it was ruled that the demand made after a year from the relevant date lacked evidence of intention to evade tax, rendering it barred by limitation. The demand of duty, interest, and penalty was deemed unsustainable, leading to the appeal being allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved determining if certain companies were distinct ...

Tribunal Rules Companies Not Related; Dismisses Duty Demand for Lack of Evasion Evidence and Limitation Bar.

June 24, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

Demand of customs duty invoking extended period of limitation - the Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided all relevant information and documents at the time of...

Related companies – TP rules may apply to domestic operations – SC sends suggestions to Central Government

Assessment against non existent company - name of company struck off by ROC - Assessment based on Seized Materials - The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer was...

Demand of differential Central Excise Duty with interest and penalty - inflating freight charges through their dummy transport unit - The Tribunal affirmed the...

Confiscation of imported liquor cases, imposition of penalties, and demand of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misdeclaration or fraudulent intent...

Clandestine removal of goods denied CENVAT credit. Liability for duty, interest, and penalty from FY 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessed. Differential duty demand of Rs....

The Appellate Tribunal addressed issues regarding the method of valuation of electrical motors, whether to apply Rule 8 or Rule 4 of the Central Excise (Valuation)...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of classifying imported Zinc as unwrought/unrefined under a specific customs tariff heading. The Tribunal rejected the demand...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

The CESTAT disposed of the appeal with the following key holdings: Undervaluation relating to stock transfer to their own unit and sale to sister unit was held not...

Classification of imported goods - Narrow Woven Fabric Webbing - The tribunal noted that the appellant's actions in misclassifying goods from a specific country...

The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), imported goods and stored them in a licensed warehouse u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. These goods were destroyed in a...

Recovery of erroneous Duty Drawback - Rule 16 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 - By inserting Rule 20(2) government has shown its different intention and Rule 20(2) of...

Demand duty - Allegation of import Portland Pozzolana Cement without payment of customs duty - No evidence for actual import of the goods - The CESTAT held that the...

Quick Updates: