TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of fact that Rialto was not a dummy or shadow company of Gillette and further that the contract between the parties was on principal to principal basis. It has also stated that, if at all, such a contract can be treated as one whereby Gillette had given job work to Rialto, the transaction between the parties were not sham. Even if, it was a job work done by Rialto, Rialto had been paying excise duty thereon. Findings which are returned by the CESTAT in this behalf included finding that Rialto and Gillette are separate and independent Companies with separate juristic personality; Rialto manufactured the goods and supplied the same to Gillette on payment of duty of excise under statutory invoices; in the Show Cause Notice, the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement, an arrangement was agreed to between Gillette and Rialto whereby Rialto was to manufacture electric hair removers and electric dyers for Gillette. Rialto was a Small Scale Industrial unit (SSI unit) and in order to undertake this job, Rialto needed requisite machinery that was leased to it by M/s. Braun India Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Braun'). It is not in dispute that Rialto had been paying excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by it which were supplied to Gillette. A show cause notice dated 31.08.2001 was issued by the Revenue/Appellant to Gillette alleging therein that it had connived with Rialto for evading central excise duty by indulging in under valuation of the excisable goods. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale, thus, evading central excise duty running into crores of rupees. Gillette filed reply to the Show Cause Notice denying the aforesaid allegations. It was claimed that Rialto was an independent entity as it was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with different shareholders and Directors who had no connection with Gillette. It was also stated that the contract entered into between the parties was of manufacture and purchase of goods and was on principal to principal basis. Notice was also issued to Rialto and Rialto filed its reply dated 13.11.2001 to the said Show Cause Notice, inter alia, making the following submissions: - a) Rialto was a private company owned by Mr. Ranjit Pratap and his family members. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pal basis. It has also stated that, if at all, such a contract can be treated as one whereby Gillette had given job work to Rialto, the transaction between the parties were not sham. Even if, it was a job work done by Rialto, Rialto had been paying excise duty thereon. The findings which are returned by the CESTAT in this behalf included finding that Rialto and Gillette are separate and independent Companies with separate juristic personality; Rialto manufactured the goods and supplied the same to Gillette on payment of duty of excise under statutory invoices; in the Show Cause Notice, the Department did not raise any objection with regard to these returns; the goods were not manufactured by Rialto out of raw materials procured by themse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
