Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 532 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - related person or not - Rule 9 of Valuation Rules, 2000 - M/s Hindustan is a partnership firm and M/s Malkoh is a Private Limited Company - under-valuation - case of the Revenue is that both the appellants are related to each other, therefore, valuation of the goods cleared to M/s Malkoh is to be determined in terms of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 Held that:- In terms of section 4(3)(b)(ii), if the person is relative then he should be relative in terms of Section 2(41) of Companies Act, 1956, which defines that relative means with reference to any person who is related to such person in anyway specified section 6 of and no others - as the Private Limited Company is not a living person and partnership firm is consist on various partners but the private limited company/partnership firm find no mention in schedule of 1(A) of section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956, therefore, the Revenue’s case fails on this ground only. The appellants are not related person in terms of Section 4(3)(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Applicability of Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that:- Admittedly, whole of the goods are not sold by the M/s Hindustan through M/s Malkoh. In fact, M/s Hindustan is selling goods to Government Department as well as for exports. In that circumstances, the provisions of Rule 9 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, on that ground also, the charge of Revenue of under valuation is not sustainable. Thus, the appellant are not related persons in terms of section 4(3)(b)(ii) of Central Excise Act,1944 and provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|