TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the excise law. The Collector of Central Excise also held that both these appellants are related to M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. with mutuality of interest, therefore, the extra consideration received by M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. would have to be added to the assessable value. 2. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Sh. Joseph Vellapally, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that M/s. Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd. and Western India Chocolate Pvt. Ltd. are independent manufacturers having their own independent manufacturing units on separate plots and both have separate financial arrangements, workers and separate income-tax and sales-tax registrations and separate excise licence. He submits that neither Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd. nor We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf the appellants are manufacturing the goods, as held by the Collector nor there is any evidence to show the financial flow back to that manufacturer. 4. In respect of M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd., he submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise, in the impugned order without any cogent reasons, held that M/s. Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd., Western India Chocolate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. are related persons. He submits that M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is merely a zonal distributor in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat and there is no mutuality of interest and no financial flow back from M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to the other appellants or vice versa. He submits that all the appellants are priva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer. The only evidence relied by the Collector is that one Hemani family, who was controlling M/s. Pittwatter Enterprieses, Hongkong, is funding the appellants. As there is a single source of fund, the appellants are one company. The Tribunal in the case of Rang Udyog v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) held that in the case of even common partners, common machines, when there is no evidence of financial flow back from one to another, the clearances of two units cannot be clubbed. The Tribunal in the case of Padma Packages (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Coimbatore reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 175 (Tribunal) has also taken the same. In another case in Binod Kumar Maheshwari v. C.C.E., Calcutta-I reported in 1997 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat when the manufacturers and buyers are limited company, they cannot be said to be related persons merely because being subsidiaries of same holding company, unless shown to have direct or indirect interest in the business of each other. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that M/s. Primlaks Waffles and M/s. Western India Chocolate Pvt. Ltd. have direct or indirect interest in the business with M/s. Target Marketing Pvt. Ltd. or vice versa. 11. In the foregoing paras, as we held that clearances of M/s. Primlaks Waffles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Western India Chocolate Pvt. Ltd. cannot be clubbed and in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Computer India Mfg. Co. Ltd. reported in 1989 (41) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
