2023 (6) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Raja Power Systems and Amara Raja Electronics. The Department after investigation took the view that the Appellant and these two entities and Appellants are interconnected units, since the Managing Director of Amara Raja Batteries is also Director of the other two entities and two more Directors of Amara Raja Batteries are also Directors of the other two entities. A Show Cause Notice was issued wherein the duty demand was quantified based on the value charged by these two units to the other parties minus the value adopted by Amara Raja Batteries to these units. The Department also established these fact by going through the invoices raised by the Appellant and these two entities. The two entities have admitted before the Lower Authorities t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dings of the Adjudicating Authority and submits that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be dismissed and the present appeal is to be allowed on merits. 3. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08 was issued on 31.10.2008. Since the Appellant as well as the two entities are Public Limited/Private Limited Companies, all their details are available with the Registrar of the Companies and their Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account are in the public domain. Therefore there cannot be any allegation of suppression on their part. Therefore the extended period cannot be invoked and confirmed the demand for the extended period is liable to be set aside on account of time bar. 4. The Learned AR submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nected units. Therefore, he submits that the benefits of time bar cannot be granted to the Appellant. 6. Heard both sides. As per the facts on record, it is clear that two entities were purchasing batteries from the Appellant and these batteries were directly delivered to the third parties who were identified by these two entities. The Appellant company was billing at a lower rate to the two entities on which Excise Duty was being paid by the Appellant but no cenvat credit was taken by the two entities. These two entities charged higher price on the third parties on which no excise duty was paid. Therefore this is not a case where Revenue neutrality will arise. It is a clear case that Appellant was avoiding Excise Duty payment by chargin....