Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (4) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in the name of DE and they were installed in the premises registered in the name of DE by the Revenue, question arises how could DEPL be considered as manufacturer. Further the boiler licence is in the name of DE and it is also an observation by the Revenue as recorded as part of evidence that DEPL did not own any machinery of their own. How DEPL can become the manufacturer and DE a dummy unit when DE had the labour and machinery and DEPL did not have anything is a question for which no answers are forthcoming - Matter remanded back. - E/25490/2013-DB, E/25491/2013-DB - - - Dated:- 21-3-2014 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY AND SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JJ. For the Appellant : G.H. Pradyumna Adv. For the Respondent : Shri N. Jagdish, Superintend .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unit and there were cash transactions between the two units and payments of one unit paid by another. 2. After hearing both sides, we reached the conclusion that it would be appropriate to remand the matter at this stage itself in view of certain important aspects which in our opinion have not been considered. 3. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has come to the conclusion that * M/s. DE and DEPL exist as separate entities only on paper but have been running/managing as one unit. * There are no machines installed in the premises of M/s DE, except for welding machines, drilling machines and tube bending machines. * No manufacturing activity is being carried out at the premises of M/s DE. * All the machines used for manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iler Regulations, a manufacturer has to obtain approval from the IBR authority. Goods covered under Indian Boiler Regulations have been manufactured and sold in the name of M/s DEPL, whereas they do not have such IBR approval. In respect of all the goods manufactured and cleared under the invoices of both M/s DE and M/s DEPL, the IBR approval had been obtained by indicating M/s DE as the manufacturer of the said goods. the documentation in respect of IBR was done by M/s DE and only invoicing was done by M/s DEPL. * The units share a common Telephone/fax connection, and e-mail address. * Power charges of M/s DE has been paid by M/s DEPL and power charges of M/s DEPL has been paid by M/s DE and such payments have not been made good by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to a massive Rs.1,12,38,333/- out of the total unsecured loans of Rs.1,17,03,355/- i.e., over 96.03% of the total loans as on 31.03.2008 in the books of M/s DE and which is substantially more than the entire purchases shown in tie purchase account (Rs.75.50 Lakhs) of the Balance Sheet of M/s DE in 2007-08. * Contrary to all business practices and laws of accounting, Rs.2,50,000/- out of the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- taken by M/s DE from M/s VCS has been repaid by M/s DEPL on behalf of M/s DE. * As seen from the loan account / ledger account of M/s DE appearing in the books of M/s DEPL amounts payable by M/s DE to M/s Venus Industries / M/s Kapil Agencies towards purchases made have been paid by M/s DEPL, cash has been transferred by M/s D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d reason on a prima facie basis even though we would not like to record final finding since we are considering only stay application. Moreover the question of treating the amount as cum tax amount, availability of CENVAT credit is also required to be considered. Therefore, we find that the matter requires a deeper appreciation of facts and proper quantification of duty liability. Therefore, instead of postponing the remand to a later stage of final hearing, we consider it appropriate that we do so at this stage itself. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication. We make it clear that the original adjudicating authority need not consider that we have e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates