TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other, etc., which are not there either in the Show Cause Notice or even in the grounds of the Revenue s appeal. So also, Rule 10 (a) would apply only if such clause is specified in the Show Cause Notice under which the alleged relationship fitted. This is also for the reason that if the alleged relationship does not fit in under Clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv), then Section 4 (1) has to be adopted. There are no reason to interfere with the reasoned findings given by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order and the same is therefore upheld - appeal dismissed- decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 109 of 2007 - A/31098/2019 - Dated:- 18-9-2019 - HON BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... likarjun Reddy, Ld. Departmental Representative appeared for the appellant-Revenue and Shri. G. Prahlad, Ld. Advocate appeared for the respondent-assessee. 4.1 Ld. Departmental Representative for the appellant took us through the grounds-of-appeal inter alia that Smt. Grandhi Suguna, who is a major partner of M/s. Vasavi Agencies, holds around 67.97% of the share capital of the firm and 89% of the share capital is held by her and her brothers; that M/s. Sri Vasavi Polymers is a closely held private limited company with 78.97% of the shareholding being held by the Grandhi Neelachalam family consisting of Grandhi Neelachalam, his wife and sons and their spouses; that Smt. Grandhi Suguna in her own name is having 9.07% in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate limited company where majority of the share holding of 78.97% was held by the Grandhi Neelachalam family consisting of Grandhi Neelachalam, his wife, sons and their spouses; that Smt. G. Suguna was holding 67.97% of the share capital in M/s. Vasavi Agenies with a mere shareholding of 9.07% in the respondent-company, by which alone the assessee is falling out of the definition of inter-connected undertakings defined under Section 2 (g) of the MRTP Act. He also contended that apart from merely alleging, the Revenue has not placed on record an supporting documents to establish that either the share capital held was more than 50% or the Management/control as required, with the help of documentary evidences available with the statutory a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndirectly, whether as director or otherwise, over the body corporate; . SECTION 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall . . . (3) . . Explanation.- In this clause - [(i) inter-connected undertakings means two or more undertakings which are inter-connected with each other in any of the following manners, namely :- (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore one or more partners of the firm should hold, directly or indirectly, not less than 50% of the share of the body corporate or exercise control directly or indirectly, etc. The Ld. Commissioner has also extracted the percentage of share capital in his order in tabular form and has proceeded to analyse the requirement of the Section that it was required to establish that one of the partners, i.e., Smt. G. Suguna, holds directly or indirectly more than 50% of the share of the body corporate or controls the composition of the Board of Directors of the body corporate and then, has observed that the two entities could not be said to be inter-connected for the reasons given therein. 8.2 The above observations of the Ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales through M/s. Vasavi Agencies could constitute only 25% to 30% of the total sales as also the fact that the assessee was effecting sales at the factory gate to other buyers as well. We also find that the Adjudicating Authority has placed on record, as verified from the records that the sales through or to M/s. Vasavi Agencies constitute 25% to 30% (on value volume) and the remaining sales are to independent buyers and to Government bodies. This clear and categorical finding based on the verification of records has not at all been challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, we have no option but to accept the well-reasoned findings of the Ld. Commissioner. 10. From a conjoint reading of Section 4 (3) (b) of the Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
