TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the basis of CAS-4 certificate or 110% of the cost of manufacture. A show-cause notice dated 22.07.2007 was issued to the respondents demanding the differential duty of Rs.73,37,143/-; seeking to impose penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 & 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The show-cause notice proposed penalty on Shri Chandrakant Vasudev Deshpande, partner of the respondent and Shri Rajendra Krishanji Pujari, Excise In charge of the respondent. The said show-cause notice was decided by Order-in-Original No. 21/CEX/2012 dated 30.03.2012. The learned Adjudicating authority vide impugned order discharged the show-cause notice, therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against such dropping of the proceedings on the grounds, which are summarized as follows: - • The adjudicating authority has erred in not examining the interconnected undertakings, who are also relatives. When the partners are common, the test of relative is automatically satisfied as one is always a relative to himself. • The adjudicating authority decided the issue on the old definition of 'related person' prior to 01.07.2000 on the basis of Tribunal's judgment in the case of Sudarshan Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000; the present case is one where the goods are partly sold to related persons and partly to independent buyers. There is no specific rule covering such a contingency, therefore the residual Rule 11 was needed to be invoked and accordingly, the same was invoked; though the Rule 8 through Rule 11 and 9 has not been explicitly mentioned in the show-cause notice, but the pith and substance for fixing the value has been elaborated in the show-cause notice; therefore, the adjudicating authority erred in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pradyumna Steel Ltd.- 1996 (82) ELT 441. • The adjudicating authority has repented solely on the submission of the respondent that the value adopted for the related person was also comparable to the value adopted to independent buyers; however, the adjudicating authority has not given the opportunity to Department to verify the claim of the noticee that they have raised supplementary invoices. 2. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that as per Para 14 of the show-cause notice, it can be seen tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 2 Ichalkaranji Engineering Cantre Pvt. Ltd., Pvt. Ltd. 3 Ichalkaranji Machine Center P. Ltd Pvt. Ltd. 4 Ichalkaranji Metalloy Founders P. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 5 Saroj Engineering Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. 6 Technovision Pvt. Ltd. 7 FIE SPHEROTECH Partnership 8 Auto Line Partnership 9 Auto Parts Partnership 10 Engineering Technologies Partnership 11 Saroj Engineers Partnership 12 Spm Tools Indl Estate Partnership 13 Fluid Line, Jaysingpur Partnership 14 Flame Industries Proprietary Sr. No. Name Of Person Male/ Female Relationship with each other 1 Kulkarni Panditrao Daji M Founder Member 2 Kulkarni Sudha Panuitrao F Wife of Sr. No. 1 3 Deshpande Rama Arvind F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 4 Kulkarni Alka Ajit F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 5 Laxmeshwar Anuradha Manoi F Daughter of Sr. No. 1 6 Laxmeshwar Manoj Vitthal M Daughters Husband of Sr. No. 1 7 Kulkarni Vishnupant Vyankatesh M Brother's Son of Sr. No. 1 8 K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d" if - (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) amongst them the buyer is a relative and a distributor of the assessee, or a sub- distributor of such distributor; or (iv) they are so associated that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. Explanation - In this clause - (i) "inter-connected undertakings" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (64 of 1969); and (ii) "relative" shall have the meanin assigned to it in clause (41) of Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)." 5.2. On going through the new definition of the 'related person' after amendment and the facts of the case, we find that amendment in the definition is of no much consequence having regard to the facts of the case as the case of the Department is not that the respondents are selling their entire goods through related person nor interconnected undertakings. The case laws relied upon by the Learned Authorized representative are mostly those where the appellants therein were selling the goods ....