Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 667 - CESTAT NEW DELHIMethod of valuation - MRP based valuation - It is the allegation of Revenue that the activity of changing the MRP/ affixing MRP stickers in their godown will fall within the deeming provision in Section 2(f) (iii) and consequently, Central Excise duty is required to be discharged in terms of Section 4A of the CEA - Held that: - It is established during the course of investigation that the price list circulated by TAPL have also been adopted for selling of goods imported in the name of 3D. The modus-operandi adopted is not challenged by the appellants. It stands admitted that such activity amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii). The demand raised is w.e.f. June 2012 - It has also been argued before us that the various contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice was not considered and discussed by the Adjudicating Authority - matter placed on remand for reconsideration. SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - case of Revenue is that clearances of both TAPL as well as 3D are liable for clubbing - Held that: - both TAPL as well as 3D have separate existence in the eyes of law. The former is a Private Limited company whereas the latter is a Partnership firm. The goods were imported under both names and have also been sold under both names, inspite of the fact that the goods were mixed up at the godown and have been sold on the basis of price list circulated by TAPL - It is settled position of law that in the absence of mutuality of interest and financial flow back from one firm to another, clubbing of clearances is not permissible merely on the ground that both firms are in the common premises and affairs of all firm are looked after by one person. Since TAPL as well as 3D have separate existence and have separate registration for VAT, Income Tax etc each one will be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption separately. The case is required to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to work out the demand denovo separately from TAPL as well as 3D after extending the benefit of SSI exemption separately to the two companies - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|