2015 (2) TMI 1219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mriti Trading & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (STIC, for short) who, in turn, sold to independent buyers at higher prices. On verification of balance sheet, it was found that STIC was a company established under the same management of the appellant, i.e. Mahalakshmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. On this basis, it was alleged that in terms of sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, STIC is a related concern of the appellant. In the show cause notice, it was contended that the transaction value arrived under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Valuation Rules, 2000 for the clearances to STIC is lower than the normal transaction value. In terms of Rule 9 of the Valuation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re related persons. Therefore, it is his submission that both the companies are not related and, therefore, the transaction value at which the goods were sold by the appellant to STIC is the sole consideration and hence the same is the correct transaction value. He further submits that even if it is accepted that the appellant and the buyer company, STIC, are interconnected undertakings in terms of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, but it is admitted fact that they are not related in terms of sub-clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4. It is his submission that in terms of Rule 10, the buyer can be related person only if it is related in terms of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age of goods were sold to STIC, i.e., as against the total sale of Rs. 50 crores, only sale worth Rs. 54 lakhs was made to STIC, which works out to less than 1.5%. This fact also establishes that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant and, therefore, proviso to Section 11A is not invokable and the entire demand is hit by limitation. 4. On the other hand, Shri V.K. Shastri, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. On careful consideration of entire records and the submissions made by the learned counsel, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of onl....