Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 683 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 683 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Del.) - Valuation - Short payment of central excise duty on the goods cleared to related buyers - Differential duty with interest - Revenue asserted in the appeal that in terms of MRTP Act, two body corporates will be treated as under the same management if one or more Directors constitute 1/4th of the Directors of the other thus all the buyers are inter-connected with the respondent - Held that:- The provisions of MRTP Act talk .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the Companies Act is totally untenable. The ‘relative’ as defined under Section 2(41) should be in such way as specified in Section 6 of the Companies Act. In terms of Section 6, a person shall be deemed to be a relative of other, if, and only if, they are members of a HUF or husband and wife or one is related to other, in a manner like father, mother, daughter, brother, etc. A corporate entity, the respondent being a Public Limited Company, cannot fit into being called a ‘relative’ in this co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

OHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri B.B. Sharma, AR For the Respondent : None ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 22.3.2007 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Raipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots liable to central excise duty. The proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of central excise duty on the goods clea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/Partners/Proprietors of the respondent and the buyers units were common/relatives in terms of Schedule-I A of Section 6 of the Companies Act, having relationship and running, controlling and managing the inter-connected undertakings. The profit accruing from the sale through related persons goes to the same family or relative, as deemed in Section 4(3)(b) read with Section 2 (41) of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereby mutuality of interest gets established and Section 4 (1)(b) of Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

products to five buyers, who are said to be related to them or the declared sale value is vitiated. The respondent is a Public Limited Company having three Directors viz. S/Shri Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Anand Kumar Agarwal. Out of five buyers, four are proprietary concerns. These are M/s. Kishan Steel Rolling Mills, Proprietor, Shri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Shri Kishan Mechanical Works, Proprietor, Shri Anand Kumar Agarwal, Shree Krishan Steel Unit-II, Proprietor, Shri Naval .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use (iv) of Explanation-I in Section 2 (g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority further held that the respondent and all the buyers are related in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of sub-section (3 ) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He arrived at this conclusion treating the companies also as natural person and being relative of one another. The impugned order rejected the findings of the Original Authority regarding the respondent and the buyers being relative . It was further he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y from the buyers to the respondent. The impugned order concluded that the respondent are not covered and hence not contravened the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) read with the Central Excise Rules and Valuation Rules. He set aside the original order. 6. We find that the appeal against the above detailed findings of the lower authorities is not based on any sound legal principles. We find that the Revenue asserted in the appeal that in terms of MRTP Act, two body corporates will be treated as und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version