9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The undisputed facts as per the show cause notice are that the appellant is a private limited company, having its factory located at village Adalpur, Dholpur in the state of Rajasthan. There is another partnership firm under the name and style of 'Raj Iron Foundry' having its office at Sultan Ganj, Agra having two partners, namely Kuldeep Goel and Rakesh Goyal, both sons of late Dharam Pal Goel who was also a partner in the said firm till his death on 08.11.2006. The said Rakesh Goel and Kuldeep Goel are the two Directors, out of three, the third one being - Jawahar Lal Arora in the appellant company. The officers of Revenue paid a surprise visit to the factory of the appellant on 11.02.2009 and scrutinised the records, wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said facts to the Department in writing, nor by any other mode of communication. Such facts came to notice only during the course of audit of the records and during visit of the divisional preventive party to the unit of the appellant. Therefore, extended period of limitation appear to be invocable. 3. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the proposed demand confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed under section 11 AC of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order have been pleased to reject the appeal, observing that there is no infirmity in the order in original. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred the present appeal before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse inference for the brand name "RIF", which is owned by the said partnership firm and for which usage the appellant have paid royalty. Reliance is placed on this arrangement for holding the appellant is a related person of the said Raj Iron Foundry, Agra, is bad and untenable. Further, the appellants had filed a detailed analysis of the freight amount incurred for supply of such goods and the difference in price is only freight amount as the goods were sold on FOR basis. Further, there is no comparison by the courts below regarding the quantity of goods sold to the said Raj Iron Foundry, Agra and to other buyers. Thus, the show cause notice is not sustainable. Further, there is no flow back in the entire transaction and in absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether as Director or otherwise over the body corporate, as defined under section 2(g) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as made applicable to the definition of "related persons" under the Central Excise Act. Thus, we find that in the show cause notice as per the facts brought on record by the revenue and the allegations made, neither the allegation of related person is sustainable nor the allegation of interconnected undertakings which although have not been established or averred. Further, in absence of any finding of flow back, the element associated persons having interest, directly or indirectly in the business of each other is also not established. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
