TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 880
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case are that M/s. Delite Kom Ltd. (DKL), manufacturer of various type of steel furniture is a limited company having its directors viz. Shri Darshn Kumar Kukreja, Shri Varun Kukreja and Shri Tarun Kukreja, Smt. Shanti Kukreja, Smt. Saroj Kukreja, M/s. Varun Kukreja & Sons and M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 is owned by Shri Darshan Kumar Kukreja being proprietor of the same. Both the appellants are having their registered office at 46, Kukreja House, Rani Jhasi Road, Delhi. The Revenue alleges that M/s. D.K. Kukreja and M/s.Delite Furniture 2000 are related persons. Therefore, the clearance made by M/s. DKL to M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 has influenced the price. Consequently, a charge of under-valuation of goods cleared to M/s. Delite Furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is having only 20% of the shares whereas for major share holding more than 20% shares are required. Therefore, she prayed that demand on account of related persons is not sustainable. She further submits that as investigation was started in September, 2002, and the show cause notice came to be issued only in the month of 2004, therefore, demand is hit by limitation. She further submits that the demand confirmed on account of addition of packaging charges in the assessable value is not sustainable as these packaging charges are recovered from the customers for special packages provided to them. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, ld. AR opposed the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the price list of the Proprietary firm, M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 ( of which he was not the owner) with effect from 01.09.2001, showing control exercised by appellant number 1 over the proprietary firm. (ii) Without any financial consideration on record, the logo was being used without any written agreement as it was stated by Shri D. K. Kukreja regarding the use of the brand "Delite Kom" and its logo by the DF, that as per a verbal agreement with the appellant number 1 DKL they have been using the brand "Delite Kom" on the goods being traded by them, which are not exactly the same type as manufactured by DKL. (iii) the accounts of both the above named companies / firms were maintained on a common server by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eja and his family members in the appellant company which taken together were more than 50% as well as on account of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. 6.5 Further, it is observed that Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been amended to include in the definition of related person the concept of inter-connected undertaking under the MRTP ACT. Therefore, with regard to the facts of the present case, the argument of appellant number 1 appears obsolete, redundant and of no relevance that consequent upon the judgement of the Honorable Supreme Court in CCE Versus T.I. Millers Limited [ 1988 (35) ELT 8] the concept of inter connected undertakings under the MRTP Act was, in the absence of any such mention in the Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent from the broad framework of sub-clause (iv) of clasue (b) of sub-sub-section 3 of Section 4. It is under this last provision various situations can be analysed including "lifting of the corporate veil" bringing the relationship between two entities (assessee and buyer) under the ambit of the term "related" persons. The first appellant in the present case has chosen to ignore this last and important provision of "related" person under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the total facts an circumstances of the case by drawing a limited analysis of certain provisions of the Acts in the grounds of appeal." 8. On going through the above said observations of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), we find that these observatio....