TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n charged on the same separately and shown separately. - Further the claim of the appellant that they have paid central excise duty adopting a value which is more than 115% has also not been examined. Annexures C & D to the show-cause notice have been mentioned in the show-cause notice as the ones giving the details of basis for demand of duty. These annexures were not available when we heard the matter. The table in the order-in-original indicates differential value and assessable value. In the column for assessable value it is not written as differential assessable value. Therefore we do not know whether the duty paid by the assessee has been taken into account or not. Moreover for limitation purpose also there is a need to examine whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineering Company (TEC) having their registered office at New Delhi as per the value indicated in the purchase order placed on the appellants by M/s. TEC. The investigation by the Departmental Officers revealed that both Talupula Industries and Talupula Engineering Company are proprietary concerns owned by Shri Nanda Gopal Gandham, and that M/s. TEC is engaged in the execution of Railway Electrification Works as per the contract awarded by the Indian Railways; Talupula Industries was floated for manufacture of galvanized steel products required for the execution of contracts by TEC; M/s. TEC was receiving orders for supply and erection of various galvanized steel products and the Railways were paying erection charges separately as indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved are owned by the same proprietor and it was submitted that there cannot be a sale between the two firms owned by the same persons and therefore the concept of related person cannot be invoked for demanding differential duty. It was submitted that since the same person owned both the units, in the absence of any sale of the products except its use in the execution of works contract, the procedure for valuation adopted by the appellants is correct. It was also submitted that separate penalty on the proprietor could not have been imposed. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly both the units belong to the same person. The original authority did not examine the contract between the railways and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
