Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 13 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - related party transaction - whether the appellant and WDPL are ‘related persons’ within the ambit of Section 4(4)(c)/4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 so as to necessitate the rejection of the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) and to re-determine the value in terms of Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of the Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 and as to whether Rule 9 and Rule 10 of Valuation Rules are invokable? Held that:- The only mention in the show-cause notice is about the appellant and WDPL being related and other than that it has not been shown as to how they are related. As rightly observed by the original adjudicating authority, mere fact of sharing common premises and services of employees do not make the two entities related in terms of Section 4(4)(c)/4(3)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944. No discussion or proof regarding any flow-back of funds or consideration from WDPL to the appellant has been brought forth. Mutuality of interest in one another is also not established - the allegation that WDPL have been put in place only with an intention to depress or suppress the value is not tenable. Once there is no ground for rejection of transaction value, recourse to re-determination of the value in terms of Central Excise Valuation Rules, is not warranted. Time limitation - Held that:- The appellants have given a clear declaration that they will be clearing their entire goods to WDPL who are their sole distributors. The appellants were audited by the departmental officers in 2000 and 2002 and there was no positive act of suppression shown to have been done by the appellants with an intent to evade payment of duty - the department is not free to invoke the extended period for issue of show-cause notice - the issue is barred by limitation. Penalty not leviable either on the appellant or their Director. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|