9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 1, 1978. On the ground that M/s. International was a related person within the meaning of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Excise Act'), the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a notice on April 13, 1982 for the period April 11, 1978 to September 29, 1979 to the respondent to show cause as to why the duty at appropriate rate under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the higher value fetched directly or indirectly by it from the independent buyers should not be charged when they were not paying excise duty, in view of the benefit of the Notification 71/78, and as to why penalty should not be imposed. After adjudication, the duty and penalty were confirmed. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the findings recorded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub-distributor of such distributor. Explanation - In this clause "holding company", "subsidiary company" and "relative" have the same meanings as in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." 5.From a plain reading of the definition, it is evident that if a person is so associated with the assessee that both of them have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other, they would be treated as related persons. The definition also includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee and any sub-distributor of such distributor, but we are not concerned with the later part of the definition. The ingredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r may be indirect. That would not make any difference, so long as each has got some interest, direct or indirect, in the business of the other." 8.Keeping these expositions and the ingredients of the definition of the "related person", we shall advert to the question as to whether M/s. International was so associated with the respondent that they had interest, directly or indirectly, so as to conclude that they were related persons. 9.We may now turn to the findings recorded by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. It was found that the respondent and M/s. International were having common Directors and that they were relatives of one another; a further finding was also noted that both the companies were family concerns an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared the prices of their goods in proforma Part IV relating to "sale of goods through related buyers" as follows : "1978-79 S. No. Description of Goods Particulars of the buyers Price at which the goods sold by the related persons to dealers Deduction Value as claimed for approval Value as approved S.T. Amt. C.E. duty Amt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Projector Head Major buyer M/s. International 12779/- per pc. 372/- 2869/- 9544/- 9544/- 2. Sound Head - do - 2807/- per pc. 82/- 629/- 2096/- 2096/- 3. Arc Lamp - do - 6854/- per pc. 200/- 1535/- 5119/- 5119/- 1979-80 1. Projector Head - do - 13530.24 per pc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
