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>Tribunal ruling on related person status, salary addition, refunds, and octroi exclusion</h1> <h3>KERALA ELECTRIC LAMP WORKS LTD. AND ANOTHER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN AND ANOTHER</h3> The Tribunal held that Crompton Greaves Ltd. was not a 'related person' of the assessee before 25-3-1982. Salaries of certain personnel paid by Crompton ... Valuation - Related person Issues Involved:1. Whether Crompton Greaves Ltd. was a 'related person' of the assessee u/s 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Determination of assessable value and the applicability of Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.3. Time bar for consequential refunds.4. Deduction of equalised octroi from the assessable value.Summary:Issue 1: Related PersonThe main controversy was whether Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Crompton) was a 'related person' of the assessee u/s 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) held that Crompton was not a related person of the assessee prior to 25-3-1982. The Tribunal agreed, stating that Crompton's control over the assessee did not constitute mutuality of interest as required by Section 4(4)(c). The Tribunal emphasized that 'interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other' was necessary, which was not present in this case.Issue 2: Assessable Value and Rule 5The department argued that the assessee's sale price to Crompton was not the sole consideration and required loading under Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. The Tribunal found that while the security deposit and marketing expenses did not constitute additional consideration, the salaries of the Chief Executive and Works Manager paid by Crompton did. These salaries were to be added to the assessable value of the goods.Issue 3: Time Bar for RefundsThe Tribunal held that since the assessments were provisional under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they were provisional for all purposes. Consequently, the time bar of six months for refunds applied by the Collector (Appeals) was removed. Refunds would accrue to the assessee without the time bar of six months.Issue 4: Deduction of Equalised OctroiFor the period from 25-3-1982 onwards, the Tribunal clarified, in line with the Kerala High Court order, that equalised octroi should be excluded from the assessable value, subject to verification of the amounts by the Assistant Collector.Orders:1. Prior to 25-3-1982, Crompton was not a related person of the assessee, but the salaries of the Chief Executive and Works Manager would be added to the assessable value.2. Consequential refunds on re-determination of the assessable value by the Assistant Collector would accrue to the assessee without the time bar of six months.3. From 25-3-1982, equalised octroi would be excluded while determining the assessable value of the goods.The 15 appeals were disposed of in these terms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
