Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1064 - AT - Central ExciseRelated party transaction or not - goods sold from the factory gate of the appellant during the said period were sold to/through firms which were “related persons” - Section 4(4)(c) of the provisions of the Central Excise Act - Mutuality of Interest - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra as this stands settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS ATIC INDUSTRIES LTD. [1984 (6) TMI 51 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that It is essential to attract the applicability of the first part of the definition that the assessee and the person alleged to be a related person must have interest, direct or indirect, in the business of each other. In the instant case, there is no evidence disclosed in either the show cause notice or the impugned order which establishes that the requirement as stated above, laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that both the Appellant and the parties to whom it sold the goods, had interest in the business of each other. The evidence on record discloses that the Appellant did not have any interest in the business of its buyers. Hence, there was one way interest .Whereas the pre-requisite is that of mutual interest, which has not been satisfied. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellant and its buyers were related persons and that the sale of the goods were to or through related persons, as envisaged under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act - The contrary finding of the Commissioner is thus not sustainable. Valuation - goods sold from depots/selling agent’s places - whether the factory gate sale price or the depot sale price is to be considered or not? - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order of the Commissioner, it is acknowledged that the Appellant Company ‘sold small quantity of their goods at the factory gate’ and that such goods were cleared ‘ex-factory to the independent buyers’. It is, therefore, established that the Appellant had factory gate sales, though of small quantity, which were cleared to independent buyers - These are all post manufacturing expenses and there is no evidence that any part of the said expenses were incurred within the factory premises prior to clearance of the goods from the factory gate. Hence, these charges are not to be included in determining the assessable value of the goods cleared ex-factory by the Appellant. There has been no under-valuation of the goods sold by the appellant during the material period and hence, there has been no short payment of Central Excise duty payable - demand of duty and interest, confirmed by the impugned order, is thus unsustainable - penalty also not sustainable. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since we have decided the issue on merits, in favour of the Appellant, we refrain from dealing with this issue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|