TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals for which the purported differential duty is demanded is August, 1996 to May, 1998. It so happened that the respondent M/s. Gillette Diversified Operations Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Gillette') entered into an agreement with another company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and known as M/s. Rialto Enterprises (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Rialto'). As per the said agreement, an arrangement was agreed to between Gillette and Rialto whereby Rialto was to manufacture electric hair removers and electric dyers for Gillette. Rialto was a Small Scale Industrial unit (SSI unit) and in order to undertake this job, Rialto needed requisite machinery that was leased to it by M/s. Braun India Pvt. L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee advances" to M/s. Rialto Enterprises (P) Ltd. obviously for purchasing raw materials and other expenses incurred in manufacturing. (iv) Employees of the respondent were posted at the plant of M/s. Rialto Enterprises (P) Ltd. (v) The goods manufactured by M/s. Rialto Enterprises (P) Ltd. were sold to the respondent at cost price, which were then sold by the respondent at a much higher price as second sale, thus, evading central excise duty running into crores of rupees. Gillette filed reply to the Show Cause Notice denying the aforesaid allegations. It was claimed that Rialto was an independent entity as it was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with different shareholders and Directors who had no connection with Gil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inafter referred to as 'CESTAT') vide impugned judgment dated 12.07.2007. After examining the record and the evidence which was produced and relied upon by the Commissioner in his order, the CESTAT has arrived at an categorical finding of fact that Rialto was not a dummy or shadow company of Gillette and further that the contract between the parties was on principal to principal basis. It has also stated that, if at all, such a contract can be treated as one whereby Gillette had given job work to Rialto, the transaction between the parties were not sham. Even if, it was a job work done by Rialto, Rialto had been paying excise duty thereon. The findings which are returned by the CESTAT in this behalf included finding that Rialto an....