TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the order of this Tribunal, we decline the request of keeping the matter pending, made by learned Authorised Representative. Therefore, the issue is proceeded to be decided. The appellant and SKF India Limited cannot be treated as related parties. Therefore, the transaction value between the appellants and SKF India Limited is the correct value for the purpose of assessment. Further, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as claimed for the clearances made for generating electricity for wind mills. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE Appeal No. 11311 of 2016, 11312/2016, 11334/2016, 10458/2020, 10459/2020, 10518-10521/2020 - A/10284-10292/2022 - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014 to March 2017. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/11135-11137/2020 dated 25.08.2020 in the appellant s own case for the earlier period and these being the subsequent show cause notices, therefore the Tribunal decision for the earlier period be followed. 4. On the other hand learned Authorised Representative submitted that the order of this Tribunal has been challenged in the Hon ble Apex Court and stay application has also been filed and the matter has come up before the Hon ble Apex Court on several occasions. He prays that till the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the matter, the matter be kept pending. 5. Heard the parties, considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement dated 08/12/2008 between M/s SKFIL and M/s SKFTIL under which M/s SKFIL has extended significant amount of loan to M/s SKFTIL. It has also been asserted by Revenue that SKFTIL does not have any backup for selling goods in the market and the entire marketing is looked after by the SKFIL. Similarly, M/s SKFIL does not have manufacturing capabilities and they are dependent on M/s SKFTIL for manufacturing of goods. On the basis of assertions, Revenue has sought to treat M/s SKFIL and M/s SKFTIL as related parties under clause (iv) section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said section 4 reads as under: (b) persons shall be deemed to be related if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was an interest in business of each other. In this case, the costs of staff are charged to each other. Therefore, it can only be treated as business transaction. 10.3 The mere fact that the entire production of M/S SKFTIL is sold through M/s SKFIL is not sufficient to make them related parties. There has to be positive evidence of them having interest in the business of each other. The mere fact that M/s SKFTL are reporting transactions with M/s SKFIL as related party transaction in their balance sheet is irrelevant. The criteria for treating two parties as related is very well defined in Central Excise Act and treatment given by the appellant in their balance sheet has no relevance in the facts of this case. 10.4 We find that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt from payment of excise duty: (i) Tower: which supports the nacelle and rotor assembly of a wing operated electricity generator. (ii) Nacelle :which contains of gearbox, generator, yaw components, flexible couplings, brake hydraulic, brake callipers, sensors, nacelle plate, nacelle cover and other smaller components. (iii) Rotor: consists of blades, hub, nosecone, main shaft, special bearings. (iv) Wind turbine controller, nacelle controller, main shaft, special bearings. From the above, it is clear that the CBIC treats the entire wind mill as the wind operated electricity generators . The generator fixed in the wind operated electricity generator is merely a sub system. 11.2 The appellants have also relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
