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 Mumbai: Common Shareholders Not Enough for Related Party Status in Customs Case</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 63 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of related party transaction in a customs case.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved the interpretation of a related party transaction in a customs case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had found infirmities in the lower authorities' order and allowed the appeal of the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner's allegation regarding the 'Related Person' was not mentioned in the show cause notice, and valuation was done under Rule 6C(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975, pertaining to transactions between related parties. The Commissioner observed that the appellants, being Limited Companies, and their buyer being another Limited Company, could not be considered related.The revenue contended that the related party transaction concept was indeed referred to in the original order by the Assistant Commissioner, and Rule 6C(ii) of the Valuation Rules should apply. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner was correct in his finding. The demand was based on the differential duty calculated on the value of goods sold by the related party to unrelated buyers. It was established that the two parties involved were Limited Companies, and the mere common shareholders did not establish them as related persons. Additionally, it was revealed during the hearing that the appellant did not sell all goods to a related party, further supporting the conclusion that the two companies were not related. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of related party transactions in customs cases, emphasizing the importance of proper substantiation and evidence to establish such relationships for valuation purposes. The decision highlighted the distinction between legal entities and the significance of actual transactions in determining related party status for duty assessment.
TaxTMI 