TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if anti evasion officers have different understanding of cost of production, it cannot be a ground for invoking the earlier Show Cause Notice - Revenue’s appeal rejected. - E/2931-2932/2006 - A/2095-2096/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 22-6-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Dr. P. Babu, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.A. Patel, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - M/s. Kisan Industries, Ahmedabad (M/s. KI for short) were engaged in manufacture of various excisable products. It was alleged by the Department that the transactions between the assessee and M/s. Nirma Ltd. (M/s. NL for short) were not on principal to principal basis as M/s. NL enjoyed special relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d above and it formed a component of the cost of production for the determination of assessable value. In the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), it has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court that In cases where the sale is effected at the factory gate, the expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery on account of storage charges, handling charges, interest on inventories (stock carried by the manufacturers after clearance), charges for other services.... cannot be deducted because these expenses promote marketability of the article and thus enter into its value in the trade. (iii) The conclusion derived at by observing the standards of CAS-4 regarding Abnormal and non-recurring cost at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said assessee. The said assessee is not the noticee in the said case, rather in the said case the said assessee is the buyer of the goods. Also, the observation made by the CESTAT in the said case, while ruling it as time barred, is not at all relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the application of the ratio of CESTAT Order No. E/1650-1653/WZB/2005/C-III, dated 28-8-2005 is erroneous. Further, in the instant case, the said assessee had not disclosed the correct cost of production in the Price Lists filed by them under Rule 173C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and thus, it is a clear case of willful mis-declaration and suppression of the cost of production. Therefore, the extended period of 5 years ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s himself held that the transactions between M/s. KI M/s. NL could not be considered at Arm s length. There is no appeal by the appellant on this observation of the adjudicating authority. 5. Having held so, the Commissioner has observed in para 20.1 as under :- 20.1 I find that there is no discussion or allegation in the SCN that the other buyers are related or not independent or the price is tainted. Hence, I find much force in the argument of M/s. KI that the sales to M/s. NL were made at the same price at which the goods were sold to independent buyers. They have paid duty even on goods cleared on job work done (other than under rule 57F(4) CER, 1944) at the same assessable value during 97-98 while all clearances for job work wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the capital invested by them; similarly, the creditors of the members have no right to the assets of the corporation. This position has been well-established ever since the decision in the of Salomon v. Salomon Co. [(1897) A.C. 22 H.L.] was pronounced in 1897; and indeed, it has always been the well recognised principle of common law. However, in the course of time, the doctrine that the corporation or a company has a legal and separate entity of its own has been subjected to certain exceptions by the application of the fiction that the veil of the corporation can be lifted and its face examined in substance. The doctrine of the lifting of the veil thus marks a change in the attitude that law had originally adopted towards the concept of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid for both the periods, then also there is no short levy as such. 25. Thus, I hold that the price charged by M/s. KI to buyers other than M/s. NL is also applicable to removals to M/s. NL and the same was not influenced by the relationship between M/s. NL and M/s. KI. Revenue has not advanced any justifiable and reasonable ground to interfere in the said findings of the Commissioner. We find no reasons to interfere in the same. 8. Further the demand has also been held to be barred by limitation by observing as under :- 26. Further, as regards time bar, it is contended by M/s. KI that it is clear from the records withdrawn by DGCEI officers and relied upon the documents as per Annexure B to Show Cause Notice at Sr. No. 19 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
