Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules on related persons status under Central Excise Act, 1944</h1> <h3>M/s. EWAC Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II</h3> M/s. EWAC Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II - TMI Issues Involved:1. Determination of whether Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 are 'related persons' under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Validity of the transaction value between Appellant 1 and Appellant 2.3. Applicability of mutuality of interest between Appellant 1 and Appellant 2.4. Legitimacy of the demand for differential duty and imposition of penalties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Whether Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 are 'Related Persons':The Commissioner held that Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 are related persons within the meaning of sub-section 3(b) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner noted that both appellants are interconnected undertakings as per the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, and under the same management. The relationship was further supported by the Selling Agency Agreements, which indicated mutual obligations and shared interests between the two entities.2. Validity of the Transaction Value Between Appellant 1 and Appellant 2:The Commissioner concluded that the transaction value between Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 could not be accepted as the assessable value for excise duty purposes. This decision was based on the finding that the appellants are related persons and have mutual interests in each other's business, thus necessitating the use of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, for valuation purposes.3. Applicability of Mutuality of Interest Between Appellant 1 and Appellant 2:The Commissioner found that mutuality of interest existed between the appellants, citing various factors such as shared expenses for advertisements, trade fairs, and exhibitions, and the contractual obligation of Appellant 2 to foster the interests of Appellant 1. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the reasons provided do not establish mutuality of interest. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Atic Industries case, which clarified that mutuality of interest requires both parties to have a direct or indirect interest in each other's business.4. Legitimacy of the Demand for Differential Duty and Imposition of Penalties:The Commissioner confirmed the demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. 25,12,27,613/- for the period from July 2006 to December 2010 and imposed equivalent penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB. The Tribunal, however, set aside the impugned order on merits, concluding that the appellants were not related persons and that the transaction value should be accepted for excise duty purposes. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to discuss the issues of limitation and penalties.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that the appellants were not related persons within the meaning of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that there was no mutuality of interest in the business of each other. The transaction value between the appellants was deemed valid for the determination of assessable value, leading to the dismissal of the demand for differential duty and the associated penalties.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found