2023 (10) TMI 1213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bhai R Patel and Smt. Naynaben M Patel, during the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Later during the financial year 2007-08, Shri Devangbhai R Patel and his wife Smt. Anitabrn D Patel were the partners of the firm. The firm was engaged in the manufacture of IPCO creamy snuff falling under chapter sub heading 240399.40 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in their factory Nadiad since 2001. They obtained Central Excise Registration on 14.12.2001 in the names of the above Partnership firm. Names of above three persons as partners were endorsed on the reverse of the Registration Certificate. The goods manufactured by M/s Asha Industries were sold in the local market through M/s. IPCO Sales Agency, which is a proprietor co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tive as defined in clause 41 of Section 2 of Companies Act, 1956 which definition of relative is adopted in section 4 of the Act. The definition of relative provided in Companies Act, 1956 is applicable only in respect of natural person and therefore the said definition has no application to the fact of the present case. In this regard he placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of The State of Punjab Vs Jullundur vegetable Synd. AIR 966 SC 1295. 2.1 He further submits that the partners of the manufacturer assessee and the proprietor of the buyer are though members of the same family cannot have any bearing for determination of the issue related person under the Act in as much as the term family or members of the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the genuineness of such letters were not questioned, merely because the concerned inward staff has not recorded the details of these letters in their inward register, It cannot be concluded that this letters were not submitted. In support of his submission that the entire demand is time bared, he placed reliance on the following judgments: * The State of Punjab Vs M/S. Jullundur Vegetable Synd. - AIR 1966 SC 1295 * Union of India Vs. Atic Industries - 1984 (17) ELT 323 SC * Continental Chandigarh - 2007 (216) ELT 177 SC Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2007 (216) ELT 177 SC * Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. Vs. CC Ex. Bombay - 1995 (78) ELT 401 SC * CC Ex. Chennai - III Vs. Ranka Wires Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 410 SC * Apex Electricals Pvt Ltd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on of the manufacturer partnership firm. 4.2 The appellant from time to time informed the department regarding any change either in the manufacturer firm or in the buyer firm M/s IPCO Sales Agency. The said letters are scanned below: From the above letters, the department was kept informed about the partners and proprietor of manufacturer assessee as well as the dealer. With these information if at all the department was of the view that both are related persons the issue could have been raised within the normal period of limitation i.e. one year. However, department has not taken any action and subsequently the demand was raised by invoking extended period of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority made a serious charge about the authenti....