Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s AGP Engg. P. Ltd.

2016 (6) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 are relatives or the directors of the private limited company and the propr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 C.S. :- Revenue is in appeal challenging the impugned order which set aside .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Revenue is before the Tribunal. 3. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urther 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 Department that there is mutuality of the interest among the appellants and the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version