TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT ruling: Disclosure of related party transactions crucial for PVC pipe valuation</h1> <h3>KEERTHI PVC PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore ruled in the appeal of M/s. Keerthi PVC Products Pvt. Ltd. concerning the valuation of PVC pipes manufactured ... Valuation - Related person - Demand - Limitation Issues: Valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant's company, related party transactions, suppression of assessable value, imposition of penalties under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, larger period of limitation, managerial control, financial flowback, mutuality of interest, duty calculation, permissible deductions, remand for redetermination of duty liability.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved the appeal of M/s. Keerthi PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., regarding the valuation of PVC pipes they manufactured under Chapter Heading 3917.00 of the Schedule to CETA, 1985. The issue revolved around the alleged related party transactions with M/s. Devi Enterprises, questioning the transaction value and accusing the appellants of suppressing assessable value to evade duty payment. The Department contended that the two firms were related due to the Managing Director's association with both entities and financial flowback between them. The Department adopted the prices at which M/s. Devi Enterprises sold goods to wholesale buyers for duty calculation and small scale exemption purposes.The arguments presented focused on whether the parties were genuinely related, with the appellant's advocate emphasizing that mere association did not imply related party transactions. The Department argued that the appellants deliberately undervalued goods, benefiting from substantial financial support from M/s. Devi Enterprises. The Department cited financial statements and precedents to establish a mutuality of interest between the firms, supporting their claim of related party transactions.The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and arguments, concluding that the appellants failed to disclose the relationship with M/s. Devi Enterprises, indicating managerial control over the distributor without a formal agreement. The Tribunal upheld the Department's view of related party transactions, determining that the distributor's selling price should form the assessable value for duty calculation and SSI exemption eligibility. The Tribunal directed a reassessment of duty considering permissible deductions and set aside the penalty under Section 11AC pending the redetermination of duty. The penalty on the Managing Director was also subject to reassessment. The appeals were allowed for remand to determine the correct duty liability, emphasizing the need for a fair reassessment process.In summary, the judgment addressed the complex issues of related party transactions, valuation of goods, suppression of assessable value, imposition of penalties, and the need for a meticulous reassessment process to determine the correct duty liability in light of the relationship between the appellant and M/s. Devi Enterprises.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
