Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1113 - AT - Central ExciseRelated person - whether purchaser, who had purchased the products manufactured by the two companies and sold it in the market has to be treated as a related person - appellants had made a submission that M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. had separate land, factory premises, water connection, telephone connection and separate staff, none of these aspects has been considered in the impugned order - both M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. have sold all their goods to M/s. Madhuvan Metals Pvt. Ltd. and they had supplied raw materials and gave some advance, but the matter had not been dealt with sufficient details, stay petition allowed and matter remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals)
Issues:
1. Whether two separate units should be treated as one entity for the purpose of Central Excise duty calculation. 2. Whether a purchaser can be considered a 'related person' leading to a differential duty demand. Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns the demand of Central Excise duty, penalty, and interest on the appellants due to clearances made in the name of another unit, M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., which the authorities argue should be added to the value of clearances of the appellants as both firms are deemed to be one entity. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not adequately consider whether the two units can be treated as separate entities. The appellants claimed that M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. had distinct physical and operational characteristics, such as separate land, factory premises, and staff, which were not considered in the impugned order. The Tribunal found a lack of detailed discussion on the facts and applicability of relevant case law in the Commissioner's decision, leading to the conclusion that a more thorough analysis was required. 2. Additionally, the judgment addresses the issue of whether the purchaser, M/s. Madhuvan Metals Pvt. Ltd., can be considered a 'related person,' resulting in a differential duty demand. The Tribunal observed that while the Commissioner briefly discussed the related person's value, the details provided were insufficient. The Commissioner noted the common shareholding and directorship between M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd., as well as transactions with M/s. Madhuvan Metals Pvt. Ltd., but failed to delve into the specifics of these relationships. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner for a more comprehensive review, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case before a final decision is made.
|