1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Court rules in favor of extended duty recovery period and assessable value proviso application.</h1> The case involved issues concerning the extended period for duty recovery, determination of the relationship between two companies, and the application of ... Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person Issues:1. Extended period of limitation for recovery of duty.2. Determination of relationship between Powertech and HVIE.3. Applicability of third proviso under Section 4(1)(a) for assessable value determination.Extended period of limitation for recovery of duty:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, sold a significant portion of its production to HV Industrial Electronics Pvt. Ltd. at varying discounts. The department alleged suppression of facts regarding the relationship between the two companies and proposed to disallow discounts extended to HVIE, invoking the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The Additional Collector confirmed the proposal, citing mutual interest between the companies. The appellant contended that the extended period should not apply as prices were declared to the department. However, failure to disclose the relationship could attract the extended period if the companies were related within the Act's meaning.Determination of relationship between Powertech and HVIE:The appellant argued that there was no mutuality of interest between Powertech and HVIE, emphasizing the absence of financial flowback and attributing higher discounts to HVIE's significant purchases and advertising expenditures. However, the stockholding pattern revealed close familial ties between the companies' shareholders, establishing mutuality of interest. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the companies were related due to shared ownership and common interests, supported by additional factors like shared office space and financial support.Applicability of third proviso under Section 4(1)(a) for assessable value determination:To apply the third proviso, it must be shown that the manufacturer generally sells goods to related persons and that prices are influenced by the relationship. The Tribunal noted the excessive discounts given to HVIE compared to other buyers, with discounts ranging from 35% to 45%. However, the additional discounts were deemed reasonable given HVIE's substantial purchases and advertising support. As the discounts were not abnormal and lacked evidence of extra commercial considerations, assessing goods sold to HVIE at its selling price was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.This judgment addressed the extended period for duty recovery, the determination of the relationship between Powertech and HVIE, and the application of the third proviso under Section 4(1)(a) for assessable value determination, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
