Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (4) TMI 753

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lege financial inter-dependence - there is no justification to hold that the two entities are related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act. Since the sale of goods by the appellant to EJIPL is on principal to principal basis, there is no justification to adopt the price at which EJIPL sell s the goods as value for such clearance. Clandestine removal - Whether charges of clandestine clearance is sustainable on the basis of the outward gate register as w ell as inward gate register? - Held that: - the allegation of clandestine clearance is exclusively is based on the register and the explanation offered by the Security Guard who has also maintained such register. The Security Guard, Sh. Azimuddin, in his statement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant. The Department investigated an allegation that the appellant was clandestinely clearing goods without payment of duty to EJIPL and also that the appellant was undervaluing the goods cleared to them. Upon conclusion of investigation and issue of show cause notice both charges were upheld by the original adjudicating authority vide his order dated 14.12.2006. Against the above order, the appellant filed appeal before CESTAT which were decided vide Final Order No. 57504/2013 dated 30.08.2013 in which the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for passing denovo orders after supplying the copies of documents relied upon by the Revenue. The impugned order dated 30.09.2015 has been passed in the denovo proceedings in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... further found that there was financial inter independence bet ween EJIPL and appellant since funds were flowing to and fro between these firms without any reference to the actual bills or sale of goods. The payment for goods supplied by appellant to EJ IPL was not accounted and paid consignment - wise but was made on account. (iii) The Department concluded that the appellant as well as EJIPL were related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the value of clearance s made by the appellant to EJIPL was re - determined on the basis of the sale price of the goods by EJIPL. The benefit of SSI Notification No. 175/1986 was also re - determined for both ME - 1 as well as ME - 2 and differential duty w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing reconciliation of the ledger entries for the period under dispute. (vi) There is no justification for adopting the value of the goods sold by EJIPL for clearances made by the appellant to EJIPL. (v) The allegation of clandestine clearance cannot be made only on the basis of the Outward Register maintained by the Security Guard. The Adjudicating Authority has not taken into account the fact that during the period 1991, 1795 motors have been rejected by EJIPL and sent back to ME - 1. This fact has already been reported by the appellant to the investigating agency but the same has not been taken into account. 5. L d. AR appearing for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He argued that the details found in outward register of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, we note that the appellant is a proprietorship concern with Proprietor Ms. Bulbul Dilshad David. EJIPL, on the other hand is a private limited company with Sh. Suresh Sagar, Managing Director. The two have independent existence in the eye s of law as they are registered separately under various Authorities. The appellant manufacture d and supplies mixer and juicer to EJIPL who was a trader and who in turn packed and affixed the brand name and so l d at a higher price. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was mutuality of interest in the business of each other. EJIPL, making payment for goods supplied by the appellant, on account ‟basis cannot be a reason to allege financial inter - dependence. 10. After careful .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates