TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two firms cannot be considered as related persons for the purpose of section 4(3)(b)(i) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Application No. E/COD/30839/2016 in Appeal No. E/30429/2016 - A/30680/2018 - Dated:- 5-6-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Mohd. Rahim, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons for seeking condonation of delay are the concerned officer who was handling the issue was on leave due to medical grounds and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the body corporate. 6.11 Prior to the amendment of section 4, the definition of related person as per erstwhile section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is as follows: related person means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub-distributor of such distributor. In the circumstances therefore, the erstwhile definition of related person will also have relevance even after introduction of new section 4 w.e.f. 1.7.2000. In fact, we find that appellants had argued before the adjudicating authorities with mutualit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the statute must, prima facie, be given its ordinary meaning. Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless there are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary. Nothing has been shown to warrant that literal construction should not be given effect to see Chandravarkar S.R. Rao v. Asha Lata (1986 4 S.C.c. 447 at page 476), approving 44 Halsbury s Laws of England, 4th Ed. Paragraph 856 at page 552. Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Colliery Limited (1940 Appeal Cases W 14 at 1022). It must be emphasised that interpretation must be in consonance with the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. 57. It has to be reit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
