2014 (8) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicant-Company, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicants, has submitted that during the period from October, 2006 to March, 2010, the submission, that are not having any mutuality of interest, even the Directors are common and Head Offices are common, the ld. Advocate referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Besta Cosmetics Ltd. : 2005 (183) ELT 132 (SC) & Commr. of Central Excise Vs. Kwality Ice Cream Company Ltd. : 2010 (260) ELT 327 (SC). On the financial hardship, the ld. Advocate, submits that one of Unit is totally closed and other unit is almost closed and the Group as a whole is running in loss. 3. Per contra, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicant, but are not be assessed under Rule 10 (i) of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, as they do not have mutuality of interest and accordingly, the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (ii), (iii) & (iv) as laid down under the definition of "related persons" under Sub-section (3) (b) of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, are not satisfied. It is his submission that the ld. Commissioner's finding that because the Applicant and other two Units have common Directors, common Head Office and also in the balance sheet shown as "related persons", therefore, these units be considered as "related persons", is erroneous. It is his submission that these facts are not sufficient to establish mut....