9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate ORDER PER. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. :- Revenue is in appeal challenging the impugned order which set aside the duty demand, interest and penalty. 2. The respondents are manufacturers of Iron and Steel products and hold Central Excise registration. During the period 22/03/2001 to 16/06/2003 the appellants cleared excisabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the key persons of all the units are related persons. Therefore the profit accruing from sale thorugh such persons goes to the same family and this would establish mutuality of interest. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that goods were sold to independent buyers also and the sale price charged from such unrelated buyers is not disputed by the authority. When p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for decision gets limited to the provisions of sub-clause (ii). Whether the two limited companies or a private limited company and a firm or a private limited company and a proprietary concern can be said to be related in terms of sub-clause (ii) is what needs to be decided. The use of the word "related" in sub-clause (ii) has to be understood within the meaning of "relative" as defined under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that merely because the key persons of all units are related or are members of a HUF it cannot be said that they are related persons under the Excise law is correct. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the open c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
