TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Delite Furniture 2000 controlled by M/s. DKL was not known to the department prior to investigation. In these set of facts, we hold that the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked in this matter. Computation of assessable value - inclusion of packaging charges - Held that:- We further find that the appellant have failed to discharge their obligations to prove that the packaging charges are being recovered in special circumstances from the customers. Therefore, the Authorities Below has rightly included the packaging charges in the assessable value. - Decided against the assessee. - Excise Appeals Nos. E/546 to 548/2007-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos.53523-53525/2015 - Dated:- 17-11-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and also a demand on account of non-inclusion of packaging charges in the assessable value along with interest and penalties on all the appellants were confirmed. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellants are before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the demand has been confirmed on the allegation that M/s. DKL and Delite Furniture 2000 are related persons as Shri Darshan Kumar Kukreja is the proprietor of M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 and having shareholding in M/s. DKL. But at the time of investigation, no incriminatory documents were found and there is no money flow back to establish that these are related persons. She further submits that the allegation that both are working from the same premises is not correct as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly confirmed on the allegation of under valuation. She further submits that as the fact that the appellants are related persons has not been disclosed to the Department, therefore, extended period is rightly invoked in this case. She further submits that the onus that the special packaging charges are not includible in the assessable value is on the appellant and the appellant has failed to discharge their onus. Therefore, the demand on that account has been rightly confirmed. 5. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the first allegation against the appellant is that they are related persons to M/s. Delite Furniture 2000. The allegation is based on the following observations in the impugned order:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as regards delivery or receipt of the goods they take orders from one Ms. Sunita in the Head Office in respect of all the companies as per the directions of Shri D.K. Kukreja, clearly indicative of control. (vi) Shri Jagdish Prasad stated that he and one Shri Atul handle the godown and that they both were drawing their salaries from M/s. Delite Kom Limited. (vii)The undertaking, M/s. Delite Kom Limited (appellant number 1) is a Public Limited Company [ a body corporate ] and the other undertaking, M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 is a proprietary buyer firm. The appellant number 1 is a manufacturing-selling company. Both the entities are controlled by the same person, Shri D.K. Kukreja as well as by the Group of persons represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed in the impugned order as under:- 6.7 TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF RELATED PESON - In the present case, while discussing the question of the two entities having interest in the business of each other, the appellant number 1 has proceeded to either ignore the relevant facts or to analyse them piecemeal. I observe that it is not sufficient for addressing the question whether the appellant number 1 and M/s. DF 2000 are related or not to argue by merely focusing in an isolated and piecemeal manner on the corporate or non-corporate nature of the entities or confining oneself to arguments on single aspects of ownership and control, shares, etc., whereas, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d persons and the fact that M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 controlled by M/s. DKL was not known to the department prior to investigation. In these set of facts, we hold that the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked in this matter. 10. We further find that the appellant have failed to discharge their obligations to prove that the packaging charges are being recovered in special circumstances from the customers. Therefore, the Authorities Below has rightly included the packaging charges in the assessable value. 11. With these observations, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. The appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed. [operative portion of the order already pronounced in open court] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
