2016 (2) TMI 683
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....central excise duty on the goods cleared to related buyers. After due process, the Original Authority vide order dated 13.11.2006 held that the respondents are liable to pay the differential duty of Rs. 16,78,974/- with interest. He imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22.03.2007 set aside the order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us in appeal. 3. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds in the appeal. He submitted that the Directors/Partners/Proprietors of the respondent and the buyers' units were common/relatives in terms of Schedule-I A of Section 6 of the Companies Act, having relationship and running, controlling and managing the inter-connecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and the four buyers, who are proprietary concerns, do not fall under the category of 'inter-connected undertakings' under Section 2(g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority found that the respondent and M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. are 'inter-connected undertakings' in terms of sub-clause (iv) of Explanation-I in Section 2 (g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority further held that the respondent and all the buyers are related in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of sub-section (3 ) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He arrived at this conclusion treating the companies also as natural person and being relative of one another. The impugned order rejected the findings of the Original Authority regarding the respondent and the buye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lic Limited Company. The Revenue also relied on the provisions of Rule 9 without specifically alleging that all the goods manufactured by the respondent are sold, to or through these purported related persons. Further, we find that the Revenue's assertion that a jurisdic person also can have a 'relative' in terms of Section 2(41) of the Companies Act is totally untenable. The 'relative' as defined under Section 2(41) should be in such way as specified in Section 6 of the Companies Act. In terms of Section 6, a person shall be deemed to be a relative of other, if, and only if, they are members of a HUF or husband and wife or one is related to other, in a manner like father, mother, daughter, brother, etc. A corporate entity, the respondent b....