9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and the price at which goods were shown to be sold by these firms should be adopted for valuation of the goods. In the case of sale through consignment agent the argument is that the goods were being sold for the first time only by the consignment agent and the price at which consignment agent sold the goods less admissible deductions should be the assessable value rather than the value adopted for stock transfer. After proceedings in first appeal there is a confirmed demand of Rs. 1,98,236/- for the period April 1994 to Nov 1996, against the appellant along with appropriate interest. There are also penalties of Rs. 30000/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q for the period April 94 to 27-09-96 and Rs. 51,076 under section 11AC of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oices are raised by SVA 3.2 Facts relied upon in the case of JKA (a) JKA is acting as a sole selling agent from 01-04-96; (b) The Constitution of JKA is almost the same as that of SVA except that one partner in SVA changed; (c) No amount is invested by JKA in its business (d) The administrative office of the JKA is the same as the administrative office of SVPPL. JKA did not pay any rent to SVPPL. (e) Goods were being further sold in the same transport vehicle on the same day as the goods were shown to be purchased by JKA; (f) JKA did not pay any transportation charges for delivery of the goods at their place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relationships among partners of the firm and Directors of the company cannot be a reason to hold that the firms were bogus; (e) The clause regarding sales return or replacement of damaged goods between JKA and SVPPL were usual commercial terms. 5. They also submit that even if the legal arguments of Revenue is taken as correct the quantum of duty calculated is not proper because the sale prices adopted for working out differential duty is not correct in Annexure-III because price per Metric Ton for the goods for all unit packing is taken as uniform whereas actually the price per ton depended on the contents in each package. 6. In the case of sales through PLAT the argument raised is that till 27-09-96 the value of simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; i. Super Engineering Works vs. CCE - 2002 (140) E.L.T. A92 (S.C)] ii. CCE Vs. Modi Alkalies & Chemicals ltd.- 2004 (171) E.L.T. 155 (S.C) 8. When the facts of this case are considered it is obvious that the two firms SVA and JKA are floated only to suppress the value on which excise duty was to be paid. These distributors have no separate establishment, no staff and no activity other than raising parallel invoices. Further there is free flow of funds between the two entities. So it is obvious that the firms are set up for reducing excise duty incidence and to give financial gain of close relatives of the Directors of the Company. The sales tax rate on the product was 3.45% as seen from the annexure to SCN, much ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liability will get revised if correctly calculated taking the price at which goods are sold by the distributors as basis. They have requested for copies of all documents seized for making a correct calculation. The adjudicating authority is directed to comply with this request. In fact the original documents itself may be released to the appellants at this stage. The appellants may submit its calculations within thirty days of receipt of such documents to the adjudicating authority for verification. When such calculation is submitted the benefit of cum-duty price also may be claimed by SVPPL. 12. The adjudicating authority is directed to verify the calculations if any submitted by the appellants within 30 days and re-calculate the liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
