9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold majority equity shares (47.27%) of the assessee company and consequently has managing Control over the assessee company and the two companies are interconnected undertaking in terms of Section 2 (g) of MRTP Act,1969. Therefore, the department was of the view that the valuation of the goods sold by the appellants to JSW Steel ltd. will have to be done as per the Central Excise valuation Rules, 2000. It was also noticed that the appellant had been clearing similar goods to other independent buyers and the average price charged to JSW Steel Ltd. is less by about Rs. 730/- per MT. Therefore, the department was of the view that the prices at which the appellant had sold the goods to independent buyers should be taken as the basis in terms o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Ice Cream Co. - 2010 (260) ELT 325 (SC), Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. vs. CCE- 2002 (143) ELT 244 (SC) and UOI Vs. Atic Industries Ltd. - 1984 (17) ELT 323 (SC) would apply. In these decisions it had been held by the Hon'ble Apex court that to be held as related persons, each of the parties involved should have direct or indirect interest in the business of each other and in the absence of such an interest, it cannot be alleged that these parties are related. It is therefore, their plea that the prices charged by the appellant to JSW Steel ltd. is a transaction price acceptable under Section 4 (1) (a) itself. It is further contended that the HSW Steel ltd. lifts 30% of the production of the appellant and in view of the huge quantity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal for consideration. 5.1 Though the appellant and the buyer are interconnected undertakings as defined in Section 2(g) of the MRTP Act and hence, related in terms of the provisions of Section 4 (3)(b), they are not related as defined in the Companies Act. Therefore, in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 as the appellant is not related to the buyer as defined in the sub-clause (ii) (iii) & (iv) of the sub-rule (3) of Section 4, valuation has to be done by treating both the parties as if they are not related persons for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 4. No evidence has been adduced by the revenue to show these two firms are related as provided for in the Companies Act or they have mutuality in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
