9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the cost of manufacture. A show-cause notice dated 22.07.2007 was issued to the respondents demanding the differential duty of Rs.73,37,143/-; seeking to impose penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 & 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The show-cause notice proposed penalty on Shri Chandrakant Vasudev Deshpande, partner of the respondent and Shri Rajendra Krishanji Pujari, Excise In charge of the respondent. The said show-cause notice was decided by Order-in-Original No. 21/CEX/2012 dated 30.03.2012. The learned Adjudicating authority vide impugned order discharged the show-cause notice, therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against such dropping of the proceedings on the grounds, which are summarized as follows: - * The adjudicating authority has erred in not examining the interconnected undertakings, who are also relatives. When the partners are common, the test of relative is automatically satisfied as one is always a relative to himself. * The adjudicating authority decided the issue on the old definition of 'related person' prior to 01.07.2000 on the basis of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sudarshan Casting Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (217) ELT 428 (Tri-Del). * The details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the Rule 8 through Rule 11 and 9 has not been explicitly mentioned in the show-cause notice, but the pith and substance for fixing the value has been elaborated in the show-cause notice; therefore, the adjudicating authority erred in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pradyumna Steel Ltd.- 1996 (82) ELT 441. * The adjudicating authority has repented solely on the submission of the respondent that the value adopted for the related person was also comparable to the value adopted to independent buyers; however, the adjudicating authority has not given the opportunity to Department to verify the claim of the noticee that they have raised supplementary invoices. 2. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that as per Para 14 of the show-cause notice, it can be seen that all the corporate bodies of the group, 100% share holding is by the partners of the assessee firm either directly or indirectly through their relatives; the ld AR took us through the statutory provisions of Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 4(3)(b) ibid and submits that in terms of the provisions, the respondents are relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnologies Partnership 11 Saroj Engineers Partnership 12 Spm Tools Indl Estate Partnership 13 Fluid Line, Jaysingpur Partnership 14 Flame Industries Proprietary Sr. No. Name Of Person Male/ Female Relationship with each other 1 Kulkarni Panditrao Daji M Founder Member 2 Kulkarni Sudha Panuitrao F Wife of Sr. No. 1 3 Deshpande Rama Arvind F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 4 Kulkarni Alka Ajit F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 5 Laxmeshwar Anuradha Manoi F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 6 Laxmeshwar Manoj Vitthal M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 7 Kulkarni Vishnupant Vyankatesh M Brother's Son of Sr. No. 1 8 Kulkarni Suresh Vyanktesh M Brother's Son of Sr. No. 1 9 Kulkarni Sulbha Suresh F Wife of Sr. No. 8 10 Kulkarni Tushar Suresh M Son of Sr. No. 8 11 Kulkarni Nilesh Suresh M Son of Sr. No. 8 12 Deshpande Chandrakant Vasudeo M Sister's Son of Sr. No. 1 13 Deshpande Rajiv N. M Sister's Son of Sr. No. 8 14 Yalgl Suahs Gajananrao F Wife's brother of Sr. No. 8 15 Arvind G. Deshpande M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 16 Ajit T. Kulkarni M D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1956)." 5.2. On going through the new definition of the 'related person' after amendment and the facts of the case, we find that amendment in the definition is of no much consequence having regard to the facts of the case as the case of the Department is not that the respondents are selling their entire goods through related person nor interconnected undertakings. The case laws relied upon by the Learned Authorized representative are mostly those where the appellants therein were selling the goods exclusively through their related persons/connected undertakings. The case of Fiat India Ltd (supra) was about selling at a price less than the cost price. The facts of the present case are different. In this case it is evident on record that a selling price to independent buyers is available. No reasons for rejection of the declared value are established. Learned commissioner has gone in to this aspect and spelt out reasons in detail as to why he doesn't consider the group companies are not related for the purposes of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. Having gone through the findings of the commissioner, we are of the opinion that when the respondents are selling their goods at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
