2014 (7) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td, Calcutta; M/s. Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., Mumbai; M/s. Triveni Structural Ltd. (T.S.L.) Naini; Allahabad and M/s. Tungbhadra Steels Products Ltd. are subsidiary companies of the Respondent. The Respondent have 70% to 100% share holding in the above mentioned subsidiary companies. In the year 1999-200o the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) were signed between the Respondent and the above mentioned subsidiaries to:- (i) monitor the performance of Group Companies on a monthly basis and take timely corrective actions in case of slippages; (ii) review the performance-targets of the subsidiaries; (iii) provide technology up-gradation plan; (iv) provide research and development plan; (v) review customers project execution plan; (vi) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been provided to the subsidiary companies. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) these four appeals have been filed by the Revenue. 2. None appeared for the Respondent though a notice for hearing had been send to them well in advance. In view of this, so far as, the Respondent are concerned, in accordance of the Provisions of Rule 21 of the CESTAT procedure Rules, the matter in respect of the Respondent is being decided ex-parte. 3. Heard Sh. Jayant Sahay, the learned DR, who assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of Revenue's appeal and pleaded that the Respondent and their subsidiaries are two independent legal entities and findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), that there is no service provider and client r....