TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. Accordingly duty demands were made against the appellants in the four appeals. In Appeal No. 5327/ the duty demanded is Rs. 36,212/- for the period December, 1993 to February, 1993. In Appeal No. 438/96 the duty demanded is Rs. 14,982.35 and the period involved is March, 1994. In Appeal No. 1557/96 the duty demanded is Rs. 30,402/- and the period of dispute is July, 1994. In Appeal No. 1724/96, the duty demanded is Rs. 1,05,104/- and the period involved is August, 1994 to December, 1994. Since common questions are involved in these four appeals and since the appellant is the same, we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of Uninterrupted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the assessable value. In this connection the learned Advocate Shri A.K. Ramachandran, stated that the value of the batteries supplied by the appellant to M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is liable to be added to the assessable value in view of the fact that batteries are essential for the functioning of the UPS System. Therefore he fairly conceded that wherever the batteries are supplied by the appellants along with the UPS System they have no objection for loading the value of the same in the assessable value. 5. But he contended that where the batteries are supplied by M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. along with this UPS System, that price is not liable to be added. In this connection he pointed out that the main dispute is with respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ership of shares of both the firms lies in the hands of Shri O. Padmanabhan and Shri T.J. Subhash who are the common Directors of both the units. Hence he pointed out that there is mutuality of interest between the two firms. He also pointed out that the sales of M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. are at a lower price and the battery is an essential integral part of the UPS System. Therefore he pointed out that the picture which emerges from the above facts is that the purchase of battery by M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. and which is sold along with the UPS System manufactured by the appellant is a convenient arrangement made by the two firms. He therefore justified the decisions of the lower authorities. 7. We have considered the submissions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) can be invoked. Nothing in this regard is on record nor any evidence has been placed before us to show that the two had direct or indirect interest in the business of each other. 9. Reliance was further placed on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 152 in the case of Vivomed Labs (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. In that particular case in para 6 at page 159 the Tribunal held as follows : The details of the shareholders have also been given. It cannot be said that the shareholders in all these firms are the same group of persons so as to vest control with a single group of persons for all the units. In fact, it is also seen that the financing of the firms has been through sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Sundri Surti Stores v. Collector of Central Excise and 1988 (34) E.L.T. 239 in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise are not applicable to the facts of this case. Those decisions were decided with respect to the clubbing of the clearances of the two firms and in those cases there were evidences of financial flow back between the concerned firms as well as several other factors were available. Therefore the most important factor of financial flow back is absent in this case. In that view of the matter we are of the view that the mere fact of Shri O. Padmanabhan and Shri T.J. Subhash having got major shares in both the firms by itself is not sufficient to hold M/s. Supratronics (P) Ltd. is related person of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf. However we find that this is a matter which is required to be examined by the adjudicating authority and for this purpose we hold that the matter has to be remitted back to the adjudicating authority in respect of the 4 show cause notices to consider this aspect of the case and to pass necessary orders in this behalf after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and by observing the principles of natural justice. 11. We have also held that the evidence on record does not substantiate the plea of the Department that M/s. Supratronics is related person of the appellant. We have also held that whenever the appellant has removed the UPS System with battery, value of battery then alone is to be included in the assessa....