TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents herein and set aside the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise(Adj.), New Delhi. Facts in the case of M/s. India Thermit Corporation Ltd.: M/s India Thermit Corporation Ltd., respondent No.1 herein, (for short 'ITCL') is engaged in the manufacture of 'Thermit Portion' and 'Thermit Welding Equipments'. Respondent was classifying these products under Chapter Heading 3810.00 and under various sub-headings of Chapter 84 respectively. The main product of the respondent is 'Thermit Portion' used in jointing of rails of Indian Railways. 'Thermit Portion' manufactured by the respondents are cleared by two methods: (a) Outright sales to Indian Railways which is around 20% of the production alo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agory, Managing Director of ITCL under Rule 209A of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner, ITCL and its Managing Director filed appeals before the Tribunal. Facts in the case of M/s.Asiatic Thermics Ltd. M/s Asiatic Thermics Ltd., respondent No.3 herein, (for short 'ATL') is engaged in the manufacture of dry moulds and thermit welding equipments and classifying its products under Chapter Heading 8479.00. A show cause notice dated 18.1.1999 was issued to ATL for demanding differential duty of Rs.33,80,585 during the period 1993-94 to 11.9.1996 on the ground that ITCL is the "holding company" and ATL is the "subsidiary company". ATL is solely dependent upon ITCL for supply orders and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TL, Director of ATL and Shri Alok Nagory, Managing Director of ITCL filed appeals before the Tribunal.Tribunal by its common impugned order, being the first appellate authority, considered the matter elaborately and by recording detailed reasons allowed the appeals filed by the respondents both on merits as also on limitation. In the case of ITCL, on the issue of valuation, it held that the highest of the price for bulk sale to railways is comparable price and department cannot take price for the small quantities sold to railways for assessing the products used captively. On the issue of limitation, it held that several show cause notices were issued between 27.11.1995 to 3.6.1996 demanding differential duty on valuation of 'Thermit P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of thermit portions and valuation of dry moulds. It was further held by the Tribunal that the impugned order overlaps the earlier adjudication orders in respect of period from 7.3.1995 to 31.3.1995. We agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Since, the department has accepted the earlier adjudications on the same issue for part of the period, revenue cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same point for a part of the remaining period. There cannot be second proceedings raising the demand for the same period. For the reasons stated above, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. In the case of ATL, on merits, the Tribunal held that even if ATL and ITCL are related persons, there is ....