GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (6) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 186 (Tri. - Del.) - Valuation - Mutuality of interest - duty demand, interest and penalty on the observation that all the companies and firms have interest in the business of each other as the key persons of all the units are members of a family and are related persons - Held that:- Merely because the shareholders of the two companies are relatives (the directors here), or the director of the private limited company and partners of the firm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 - Decided in favour of assessee - Excise Appeal No. 2368 of 2007 - Final Order No. 53682/2015 - Dated:- 24-11-2015 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate ORDER PER. SULEKHA BEEVI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nits, being related persons, with intention to evade payment of duty. After adjudication, order was passed confirming the duty demand, interest and penalty on the observation that all the above companies and firms have interest in the business of each other as the key persons of all the units are members of a family and are related persons. The respondents, filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order set aside the demand, interest and penalty. Being aggrieved the R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ailable, this alone can be treated as price in respect all the sales made. Further that respondent is a private limited company. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records carefully. The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand on the following observation : 7. It is not the case of the Department that one company is a subsidiary of the other. Also there is no evidence of flow back of moneys from the buyer to the seller of the goods. It is also not the case of the Depa .....

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