TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial year 2002-03 along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty. Another show cause notice was also issued on 28-3-2007 proposing to demand differential duty of Rs. 5,89,385/- for the period from April 2006 to December 2006. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that M/s. RAD-MRO Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') and M/s. MRO-TEK Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MRO TEK' for short) are to be treated as related persons and since MRO TEK utilized all the Populated Printed Circuit Boards (PPCBs) purchased from the appellants for captive consumption, the value has to be determined as per Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, following the CAS-4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TEK are held to be interconnected undertakings, they can be deemed to related only if they are so associated with their interest directly or indirectly in their business of each other. For this purpose, he relied upon Rule 10 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, which provides that if the undertakings are interconnected and are also related in terms of sub-clause (ii) or (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act, they can be treated as related persons. Therefore it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the department has to show that two parties in this case are so associated that they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 7,000/- per month. Further, she also submitted that both the appellants and MRO TEK were parties to a case of duty evasion detected in respect of imported components and both the parties had approached Settlement Commission together which would show both the companies were under the same management and there was a close contact between the two. 6. On the other hand, Shri G. Shivadass, learned Advocate submitted that it is quite common many times to have a single person looking after the affairs of two companies and the appellant company has their own Board of Directors and General Manager. Therefore, the fact that a Vice-President of MRO TEK also assisted the appellants in their affairs should not be of great significance. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the year 2002-03, the department's work sheet shows a much larger amount is payable, since CAS-4 has not been followed by the department while working out differential duty payable. The very fact that the appellants have, in fact, paid excess duty, according to the appellants' calculation and demand for payment of duty had been made only for the period January to March 2002 and the financial year 2002-03 and thereafter, April 2006 to December 2006 and the fault that there was no short payment during the period from April 2003 to March 2006 shows that the price paid by MRO TEK to the appellants was not influenced by any relationship and in fact, covers the complete cost of production and also left profit margin to the appellants. He also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002-03 and 2006-07 and in fact, in between period, even going by the method adopted by the department, the appellants have discharged excess duty. This aspect has been conveniently ignored by the Commissioner. Another important point is that in this case, whatever duty was paid by the appellants was available as Cenvat credit to MRO TEK. In fact, the learned Advocate drew our attention to the table submitted by them which showed that during the whole period, the payment in PLA towards duty by MRO TEK exceeded by many times the actual differential duty payable by the appellants. Therefore, whatever duty was paid by the appellants was available as Cenvat credit to MRO TEK and there is no discussion on this aspect also in the Order-in-Origin....