Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 504

h other - whether the appellant are related to the buyers of the goods namely, Quartz Metal Industries (QMI) and Balbir Rolling Metal Pvt. Ltd (BRML)? HELD THAT:- A perusal of the SCN shows the entire foundation of allegation is based on the relationship of the directors among each other and not about the appellant and BRML being related persons. The allegations are essetially that the directors and investors in these two entities are related to each other that the relatives of directors own up to 85% of the equity shares in the said group of companies. We find that the above allegation is totally misrepresentation of the statute. The statute requires that the assessee and buyers should be related and not that the directors of the two entities should be related. It is seen that the allegations of relationship between the two is based on the admission of the directors that they are relatives and that 100% of the product of the unit are being transferred to the ‘Balbeer group of companies’, namely QMI and BRML. It has also been asserted that the directors are members of Hindu Undivided Family. These factors are immaterial in so far as relationship between two compan .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

2012-2013, the appellants were supplying to other independent buyers apart from BRML and QMI. Ld. Counsel pointed out that Revenue has sought to revalue the goods cleared by them to VDI and BRML under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuations Rules, treating them as related entities. 2.2 Ld. Counsel pointed out that in so far as supplies to QMI are concerned, being a division of same parent company the situation is absolutely Revenue neutral in respect of same legal person. He pointed out that the entire duty paid by VDI would have been available to QMI and thus the situation would be Revenue neutral. He argued that in these circumstances no demand can be confirmed. He relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case lf Mafatlal Industries 2009 (241) ELT 153, which was upheld by Hon ble Apex Court as reported in 2010 (255) ELT A77 (SC). He pointed out that in the instant case, the appellants unit VDI and the sister unit QMI are located in same plot, although separately registered with Central Excise. He argued that in such circumstances, Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills 2001 (129) ELT 73 has held that the benefit of Notification 67/95-CE also cannot be denied for clearance f .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s: 4(3)(b) persons shall be deemed to be related if- (i) They are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) They are relatives; (iii) Amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor of the assessee, or a sub-distributor of such distributor; or (iv) They are so associated that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. Explanation.-In this clause- (i) inter-connected under takings shall have the meaning assigned to it in the clause (g) of section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (64 of 1969); and (ii) relative shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (41) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); The rule 8,9 and 10 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules read as follows: Rule 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and ten per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods. Rule 9. When the assessee so arranges that the excisable goods are not sold by an assessee except to or through a person who is related in the manner specified in either o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

BRML has invested .38 Crores in BMPPL and also given deposits of ₹ 1.6 to 2.1 crores to BMPPL. Sh. Vikash Bhushan and Sh. Vishal Bhushan hold 2,40,000 equity shares to BMPPL. More than 85% equity shares are held by family member or by their interconnected undertakings in BMPPL. BMPPL has commonly applied for loan and got it sanctioned on account of VDI and QMI. After mortgaging assets of VDI and QMI and they are enjoying common credit facility for both the divisions of the said group of companies. Capital asset of M/s VDI and QMI are owned by M/s BMPPL. The balance sheet and income tax returns are being filed in the name of BMPPL. They have common administrative office, head office and infrastructure. 2.6 Ld. Counsel pointed out that mere allegation that the VDI and BRML are interconnected undertaking is not sufficient to invoke Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. He pointed out that to invoke Rule 8 read with Rule 9, it has to be established that the interconnected undertakings are also related in terms of sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) sub-section 3 of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Ld. Counsel argued that the VDI and BRML cannot be relatives as only natural .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ing 2015 (329) ELT 121 (Tri. Del.) 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that impugned proceedings proceed on the ground that the appellant are related to the buyers of the goods namely, Quartz Metal Industries (QMI) and Balbir Rolling Metal Pvt. Ltd (BRML). 4.1 In so far as status to QMI is concerned, it is admitted by the appellant that appellant as well as QMI are both divisions of Balbir Metal and Power Plant Ltd. (BMPPL), thus, it is apparent that the two are not only related but they are as essentially one and the same legal person. Ld. Counsel has argued that the entire duty demanded from the appellant is available as credit to the same legal entity viz BMPPL in its another division namely, QMI. He argued that the entire situation is Revenue neutral. He argued that in these circumstances the demand of duty cannot be sustained and he has relied on the following decisions. 1. Lanco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Tirupathi- 2010 (255) ELT 275 (Tri. Bang.) 2. Trinity Dic Forgers Ltd Vs. CCE., Pune-I-2017 (348) ELT 276 (Tri. MUM.) In the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in such Revenue neutral circumstances .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

the industrial area the appellant is entitled to obtain one consolidated licence for the manufacture of its goods within its factory complex as the object behind the grant of consolidated licence is that any person manufacturing different excisable goods within one factory area is entitled to obtain one licence instead of different licences for different commodities. The decisions relied upon by the learned SDR are not applicable as the facts are different. In Devidayal Electonics case the Bombay High Court was interpreting the term Industrial Unit . In fact in the said case it was observed by the Bombay High Court that as the Notification uses the word factory and it uses the word industrial unit, it must, therefore, be assumed that the words were intended to bear different meanings. Put differently the words Industrial Unit must mean something other than factory . Similar was the situation in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills, 1998 (26) RLT (669). Accordingly we hold that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 is available to the Appellants as the excisable goods have been used in the factory of manufacture only. Both the appeals are thus allowed. The said decision of the Tribunal h .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

s; (ii) They are relatives; (iii) Amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor of the assessee, or a sub-distributor of such distributor; or (iv) They are so associated that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. Explanation.-In this clause- (i) inter-connected under takings shall have the meaning assigned to it in the clause (g) of section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (64 of 1969); and (ii) relative shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (41) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); It is seen that BMPPL and BRML did not fall under the category of relatives or in the category of interconnected undertakings. The term Interconnected undertaking in clause (g) of Section 2 has been described in Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as follows. (g) "inter-connected undertakings" means two or more undertakings which are interconnected with each other in any of the following manner, namely,- (i) if one owns or controls the other; (ii) where the undertakings are owned by firms, if such firms have one or more common partners, (iii) where the undertakings are owned by .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

erial in so far as relationship between two companies is concerned. The relationship of directors has no relevance whatsoever. Another allegation made in the SCN is that they are using common basic infrastructure and staff. We find that no specific instances have been pointed out. Even otherwise use of certain common basic infrastructure and staff is not relevant in so far as establishing the relationship between two companies is concerned. In these circumstances, we do not find any evidence in support of the allegation that M/s VDI and M/s BRML are related in terms of Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the demand of duty made against VDI for clearance made to BRML cannot be sustained. Moreover the Hon ble Apex Court has in case of Ispat Industries (supra) prescribed that rule 8 can be invoked only when entire sales are made to related persons. In the instant case it is not in dispute that part of the sales during 2010-11 and 2012-13 were to independent buyers. Moreover in view of above discussion even BRML is not a related entity. Thus, under these circumstances rule 8 can not be invoked. In respect of clearances made by VDI to QMI also Rule 8 of the Central .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||