TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tmental officers, during the course of audit, it was observed that M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd held 39% share in the appellant company and also nominated one Director on the Board of the appellant. The department formed the view that appellant and M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd were related persons as per Section 4 (3) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. Accordingly, it was alleged that the valuation of goods cleared by the appellant to M/s Maruti Suzuki should be on the basis of Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Since the Central Excise duty for such clearances was paid on the basis of transaction value, differential duty was demanded from the appellant by issue of SCN dated 04.03.2014 covering the period April, 2012 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3104-CESTAT-DEL (Tri.Delhi), M/s Orient Steel Re-Rolling Mill-2014-TIOL-202-CESTAT-DEL (Tri.Delhi) and M/s Goodyear South Asia Tyres P Ltd-2015-TIOL-165-SC-CX (SC). iv) The demand is barred by limitation in as much as the same issue was already raised by the department for the earlier period 2009 to 2012 in which the Addl. Commissioner passed Order-in-Original No.29/2014 dated 26.03.2014 in which the demand was dropped. Consequently, the present SCN dated 04.03.2014 also invoking the suppression clause is not maintainable. 4. The ld DR justified the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant as well as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd are related persons, who have interest in the business of each other. Consequently, the valuation of cle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dertakings" as defined under Section 4(3)(b), Explanation. The stand of the appellant, however, is that these two companies cannot be considered as "related persons" in terms of sub-clause (ii), (iii), (iv) of Section 4(3)(b). From a perusal of the impugned order, we note that a bland allegation has been made by Revenue that the two companies have mutuality of business interest in their transactions. But we note that there is no evidence on record of the fact that such alleged mutuality of interest has resulted in lower price due to extra commercial considerations. Consequently, we are of the view that it cannot be said that the two companies are 'related persons' in terms of sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of Section 4(3) (b) of the Act. Va....