2019 (1) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts are that the appellant company is a manufacturer of sponge iron. The appellant had reportedly due to financial losses, stopped its production activity during the period from March 2010 to September 2011. M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., New Delhi had acquired the control and management of the appellant by way of purchasing the latter's majority shares against a Letter of Offer and under the Share Purchase Agreement in terms of the regulations of the securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations 1997, in the month of September 2011 (Takeover procedure began in June 2011). Consequently, as per the acquirer company, the production activities in the appellant's factory at Bilha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd management over the appellant (para 6.1.2 of the Share Purchase Agreement). In the given circumstances, M/s Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd., during the subject period, was deemed to be 'related' in terms of the Explanation (i) to Section of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by being an "inter-connected undertaking". This is so because after gaining control it had indirect interest in the functioning of the appellant. In view of the above the appellant appeared to be related person of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 3.2 During the period from October 2011 onwards, the value at which sponge iron was sold to M/s Bhushan Steel & Power Ltd. appeared not to be the correct transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs. Further, the quantity cleared to the other independent buyer is only miniscule, as compared to the quantity cleared to BPSL. In such circumstances, no case of any act of omission or commission and/or suppression of facts is made out against the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, the ld. Counsel prays for relief in penalty imposed. 6. Ld. AR relies on the findings in the impugned order and further relies on the finding of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.6 and 7.4 which reads as follows: "6.6 The case law of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigarh [2007 (209) ELT 185 (Tri.-LB) cited by the appellant is not squarely applicable in the case in as much as the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that various r....