9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts are that two show cause notices were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise : (i) a show cause notice dated 3 February 2011 demanding duty of Rs. 21.47 crores for the period from July 2006 to March 2010; and (ii) a show cause notice dated 4 May 2011 demanding duty of Rs. 3.64 crores for the period from 1 April 2010 to 30 December 2010. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-II confirmed the duty demand and levied interest and penalties by his order dated 11 May 2011. In appeal, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 9 October 2012 disposed of the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal held that prima facie, the demand under the first show cause notice was barred by limitation b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02(143)-ELT-244 and upon a subsequent decision in C.C.E.Surat Vs. Besta Cosmetics Limited 2005(183)ELT-132. The submission is that the mere fact that L & T Limited holds 50% of the share capital of the Appellant does not show that they are related persons and, since the Appellant does not own any part of the share capital of the other company, they cannot be regarded as interconnected undertakings. Moreover, it was urged that the Tribunal has held that the question which was raised in regard to the mutuality of interest is debatable and needs to be examined in depth at the hearing of the appeal and hence a complete waiver of the deposit should be granted. 5. It has been urged by the Revenue that the Commissioner has held that there was mut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra), the Supreme Court has held that the share holders of a public limited company do not, by reason of only their share holding, have interest in the business of the company. Similarly, the mere existence of common directors in two public limited companies does not mean that one has interest in the business of the other. In the subsequent decision in C.C.E.Surat (supra), the Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in Union of India and others Vs. Atic Industries Limited 1984(17)-ELT-323 which held that a concern would be taken to be a related person if there is a reciprocity of interest between the assessee and such allegedly related person, interest being defined as shareholding. 9. In the present case, we have perused the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent of 50% of the duty in respect of the second show cause notice. The use of the word "debatable" in the order of the Tribunal cannot be read in isolation and the decision in its entirety would have to be considered. The Tribunal has observed that the submissions addressed by the Appellant would require consideration. This is indicative of the fact that the matter requires deliberation. Therefore, while a complete waiver is not warranted, in order to protect the interests of the Revenue, yet the quantum of deposit should be commensurate with an over all assessment of a prima facie case. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the direction of pre-deposit by the Tribunal would have to be suitably modified. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
