TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a Proprietary concern of Smt. G.R. Rani, w/o. Shri G. Radhakrishnan. The entire quantity of the said electronic fluorescent lanterns manufactured by the unit was sold to M/s. Rolls Marketing Agency (for short RMA), partnership concern and the partners were G.R. Radhakrishnan, husband of Smt. G.R. Rani and Shri Raja Chakravarty, brother of Smt. Rani. Subsequently, from August, 1995 onwards the marketing firm was converted into a private limited company in the name of M/s. Rolls Appliances (P) Ltd., (for short RAPL) with Shri G. Radhakrishnan as the Managing Director, and Shri Raja Chakravarty as Director. Thereafter another marketing concern by the name of M/s. Emergency Power Electronics Ltd. (for short EPEL) was created. The major q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elatives of the Directors of the appellants company. But on this account they are not related person or for their buyer, because one is corporate concern and other is partnership concern. Moreover, it was urged that the appellants company sold the goods to the other two units and in turn they were selling the same. The transaction was on principal-to-principal basis. 5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. Even though the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the appellants firm and the other two units are related persons, there is nothing in the show cause notice which indicates the same. In fact, the show cause notice states that the appellants are clearing the goods to their sister concerns. Prima facie we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere blood relations of manufacturing partnership firm. No evidence brought on record that an artificial legal arrangement was created in order to evade duty. Limited company is a juridical person separate from its share-holders and directors. Such a juridical person cannot be treated as a related person. Penalty set aside. In another case Weikfield Products Co. (India) v. CCE [1993 (63) E.L.T. 672 (T)] it is held that when goods are sold to two buyers only viz. Canteen Stores Department (CSD) and Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation (CMO) and price is same in both cases, partners of CMO although close relatives of Directors of appellant company can be consider neither related person nor favoured buyer, one being a corporate concern and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
