Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Continental Furnishers, M/s Shresid Interiors Pvt Ltd, Shri Sanjeev Lamba, MD Versus C.C.E. Noida

2015 (10) TMI 1840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Valuation - Related person - mutuality of interest - SSI exemption - Held that:- As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. (2002 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), merely having shareholding does not make them related persons. - loans has been repaid by M/s. SIPL in future. Moreover, goods sold to M/s. CF by M/s. SIPL at a gross profit of around 16-18% and the sale by M/s. SIPL to M/s. CF is negligible in the year 2001-02 i.e. 8.9%, in the year 2003-04 i.e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

we hold that demand of ₹ 4,84,076/- is not sustainable. Accordingly, same is set aside.

M/s. K S Enterprises is a sub contractor and who has got manufactured this aluminum windows in question by purchasing their own raw material and at site. M/s. K S Enterprises has issued invoices to M/s. SIPL to that extent M/s. K S Enterprises, has also filed an affidavit stating that the goods have been manufactured by them and they are not paying duty as they are enjoying SSI Exemption lim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

SI Exemption and M/s. SIPL is only trader for said goods. Therefore, duty cannot be demanded from M/s. SIPL. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal Nos. E/3362-3364/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 52363-52365/2015 - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Mullick, Adv For the Respondent : Pramod Kumar, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant M/s. Shresid Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (SIPL) is in appeal against the impugned order confirm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant M/s. SIPL and it was revealed that there was another unit in the name of M/s. Continental Furnishers (CF) at Panchkuian Road, New Delhi, engaged in the business of construction, purchase, trading, manufacture of handmade carved artistic goods and decorative furniture termed as "Handicraft" who claim the exemption under notification no. 76/86-CE. On the basis of the documents it was found that both M/s. SIPL and M/s. CF belongs to Continental Group. It was also observed that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h Lamba. During the period 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 M/s. SIPL sold some goods to M/s. CF and towards such sales M/s. SIPL earned gross profit of 15.79% to 18.70%. It was alleged that as sales have been affected by M/s. SIPL to M/s. CF who is a related person, therefore, the sale price of M/s. CF shall be the assessable value of the goods sold by M/s. SIPL through M/s. CF as being related persons. A demand of ₹ 47,600/- was also sought to be confirmed against M/s. SIPL on the grounds th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er was adjudicated. Both the lower authorities confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice along with interest and penalties were also imposed. Aggrieved from the said orders appellants are before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation in the show cause notice is that as both M/s. SIPL and M/s. CF are related persons, therefore, the price at which the clearance took place from M/s. SIPL to M/s. CF is not correct transaction value and profit of 18% is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Therefore, the provision of section 4(3)(b)(3) also cannot be invoked as it is not alleged that M/s. CF is distributor or sub distributor of M/s. SIPL. He further submits that the provision of section 4(3)(b)(2) in relation to M/s. CF cannot be invoked as a Pvt. Ltd. company cannot be treated as related because the legal status of directors and shareholders is different from the company. Merely because M/s. SIPL consist of shareholders who owns M/s. CF does not mean both these entities are hav .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to M/s. CF. As during the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 sales of M/s. SIPL to M/s. CF were 8.97%, 20.23% and 3.20% respectively which shows that M/s. SIPL was not selling the goods manufactured by them through M/s. CF. As per the Rule 9 and 10 of the Valuation Rules during the impugned period the said rules could only be made applicable where all the sales in general are routed through the related persons. Therefore, loading of 18% to the transaction value is not justifiable. He further submits tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to M/s. SIPL which was duly entered in their books of account and the said loan itself was required to be returned and M/s. SIPL has paid the said loan amount to Shri Kailash Lamba. He further submits that M/s. CF was in existent in 1948 and M/s. SIPL came into existence only in the year 1999. He also submits that by providing interest free loan does not create any mutuality of interest relying on the decision in the case of Jagjivandas & Co., Thane Vs. CCE Bombay-1989 (19) ELT 441 (Tri). H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been executed by Shri Kultar Singh proprietor of M/s. KS Enterprises who during the proceedings filed his affidavit saying that they have manufactured these aluminum windows from their raw material and are claiming SSI Exemption. The Adjudicating authority also accepted that these aluminum windows have been manufactured separately by M/s. K S Enterprises as Central Excise duty is leviable only on the activity of manufacture and appellant being trader, therefore, duty cannot be demanded from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aluminum windows by M/s. K S Enterprises in the hands of M/s. SIPL or not. 9. In the first issue, the case of the Revenue is that as Shri Kailash Lamba (HUF) is having its shareholding in both the firms and have advanced certain interest free loans to M/s. SIPL, therefore, both are related persons and having mutual interest in each other's business. Merely having shareholding in two firms does not constitute the related person as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alembic Glas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

essee and the chemical company were related persons. This being so, it is unnecessary to go into the alternate arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee." 10. Therefore, merely having shareholding does not make them related persons. 11. Another reason for holding related person is that Shri Kailash Lamba (HUF) has advances certain interest free loans to M/s. SIPL. It is admitted that these loans has been repaid by M/s. SIPL in future. Moreover, goods sold to M/s. CF by M/s. SIPL at a gro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version