TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... utilizing it for discharging duty liability on finished goods in terms of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Department observed that the appellant apart from the clearance of their finished excisable goods to various customers/independent buyers was also engaged in the clearances of the same to their inter-connected undertakings/ related units/ associated units namely M/s. Cosmos Castings (I) Ltd., M/s. Vaswani Industries Ltd. and M/s. C.G. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. From the details provided by the appellant vide their letter dated 21.02.2017 and 08.03.2017 the Department observed that the appellant have sold 370.246 MT of their finished goods to their said related buyers during 2014-15 and 2015-16 and thereby evaded Central Excise duty total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in 2016 (337) E.L.T. 295 (Tri.-Del.), Order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and Appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Per contra, Ld. DR has justified the Order laying emphasis on applicability of Rule 4 (1) (b) of CEA, 1944 and consequent thereto, applicability of Rule 8 & 11 of Value Determination Rules. The Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the parties at length and perusing the entire record of Appeal, considering the relevant law, we accordingly are of the opinion as follows: 5.1 The findings of original adjudicating authority are that the appellant and M/s. Cosmos Castings (I) Ltd., Raipur, M/s Vaswani Industries Ltd., Raipur and M/s C.G. Ispat Pvt. Raipur are nothing but 'related person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);" That the Explanation (i) to Section 4(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stated that "interconnected undertaking" shall have meaning assigned to it in Section 2(g) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short MRTP Act). Since the said Act has been repealed, the definition has been brought in Central Excise Act, 1944 itself w.e.f. 28.05.2012. Practically, it is copy of definition as contained in MRTP Act. 5.3 The definition of relative as specified in Section 2(77) of the Companies Act, 2013 [earlier 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956] reproduced as under: "Section 2(77) "relative", with reference to any person, means anyone who is related to another, if- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to prove mutuality of interest or that the partners of three of said the Companies and that of appellant are common. It is rather an admitted fact that appellant is the proprietor firm and alleged buyers are the private limited Company. We therefore are of the opinion that buyers and sellers herein are neither the inter-related nor are the relatives. 5.5 The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 has been applied in a situation where the buyer is related either in sub-clause (ii), (iii) or (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For attracting the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 200....