TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each other or the Director of the appellant firm is the proprietor of the other firm is not sufficient basis to conclude that the value has been affected in any way by the relationship. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/3459/2006 - Final Order No. 60047 / 2018 - Dated:- 10-1-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri. Sudeep Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. G.M. Sharma, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Devender Singh: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding differential duty along with interest and imposition of penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, who are registered with the depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... director on the same firm. He relied on the following cases laws: 1. Delite Kom Ltd. reported in 2016 (336) ELT 675 (Tri. Del.) 2. Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. reported in 1998 (99) ELT 202 (SC). 5. Heard the parties and perused the record. We find that the sole basis of the show cause notice is that the appellants and M/s Kansal enterprises Ltd. are related to each other. It is simply stated that since they are sister concern/related person, the clearance of capital goods should have been done on the depreciated value as per Board circular dated 26.05.93 and the duty on the depreciate value to ₹ 1,63,430/- whereas, the appellants paid duty of ₹ 1,31,200/-. However, the basis of relationship has not been spelt out in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt firm is the proprietor of the other firm is not sufficient basis to conclude that the value has been affected in any way by the relationship. 7. In the case laws relied upon by the Revenue, in the case of Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. (Supra), the appellants were manufactures of playing cards and sold entire stock of playing cards manufactured by them to their sole distributor M/s Ganga Saran Sons. The Revenue felt that both the entities were related persons as the Managing Director and another Director were common. In that situation, the Hon ble Apex Court has held as below: 15. In the present case, we do find that the authorities of and the Appellate Tribunal did address themselves to the basic question as to the shareholdings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r significant factors which showed mutuality of interest and control exercised by M/s Delite Kom Ltd. on the proprietorship firm like use of logo without any written agreement and without any financial consideration, common account maintained by a common person (on a common server) drawing salary from M/s Delite Kom Ltd., presence of common staff etc. In the facts of this case, no such evidence regarding mutuality of interest and overarching control is forthcoming. 9. In view of the above foregoing, we find that there is no merit in the impugned order of Ld. Commissioner (A) and the same is not sustainable. 10. In result, the appeal is allowed. ( Operative part pronounced in the open court ) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
