TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1314
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent-1 in Appeal E/297/2008 & E/483/2008) were manufacturers of P or P medicaments and were availing SSI exemption. Acting on intelligence, department officers conducted search and investigations in various premises of the manufacturer's unit of respondent-1, the residence of Shri C.C. Kesava Rao, Managing Director (respondent-2 in Appeal No.E/484/2008) and Shri G.N.C Prasad, Proprietor of Subash International (respondent-3 in Appeal No.E/485/2008)) and Shri Ch. Ashok Kumar, Proprietor of Sterling Health Care (respondent-4 in Appeal No.E/486/2008). From the investigations, it appeared that Fizikem had commenced production of goods w.e.f. 07.12.98; that Shri C.C.Kesava Rao is the Managing Director and Sri Sudheer s/o of Kesava Rao is the Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e distributor is a "related person" for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act; that as per Section 4 (1) (a) (iii) valid upto 30.06.2000, the normal price of the goods shall be deemed to be the price at which the goods are sold by the related person during the course of wholesale trade. Department adopted the sale price of the goods when sold by respondent-4 as the basis for the purposes of assessable value and took the view that value of clearances of Fizikem had crossed Rs. 300 lakhs during 2001-02; hence they are not eligible for availing exemption during 2002-03; that as the value of clearances in the related preceding financial years had exceeded the SSI limit, they are not eligible for duty exemption in the immediately following financi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest thereon and also imposed following penalties :- (i) Penalty of Rs. 46,32,765/- under Section 11AC of the Act on Fizikem (Respondent-1) in respect of proceedings initiated in SCN No.37/2002 dt. 13.3.2002 (ii) Penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Fizikem (Respondent-1) (iii) Penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri C.C. Kesava Rao, M.D. of Fizikem (Respondent-2) under Rule 26 of the Rules. (iv) Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on G.N.C Prasad of Subhash International (Respondent-3) under Rule 26 ibid. (v) Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs Ch. Ashok Kumar of Sterling Health Care (Respondent-4) under Rule 26 ibid. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No.01/08 (G) CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransaction value. In such case, since the price would not be sole consideration for sale, the transaction value would be covered by Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 w.e.f. 1.7.2000. The Revenue subsequently filed supplementary appeals E/483-486/2008 in respect of each of the respondents as required by procedure. The delay in filing supplementary appeals was condoned and they were ordered to be taken on record vide Misc Order No.634/2009 dt. 23.11.2009 of CESTAT Bangalore. 3. On 1.2.2018, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of Revenue, ld. A.R Shri Deepak Bhagath reiterated the grounds of appeal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. However, from the records, it is seen that they had submitted brief submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh that there is "mutuality of interest", flow back of funds or even tangled web of financial arrangements between the respondents. We also find that the lower appellate authority is correct in concluding that there is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation that advertising charges are borne by respondents 3 & 4 on behalf of Fizikem. We therefore are not able to find any infirmity with the following findings of the lower appellate authority : "9) Further, the allegation that the advertisement charges are born by M/s.Sterling Remedies and M/s.Sterling Health Care on behalf of the appellants company by oral agreement appears to be not correct as there is no corroborative evidence is produced by the department to prove the....