TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e taxpayer had cleared the cement in bulk and those packed in 50 KG bags, without marking MRP which attracted - ad-Valorem duties was cleared by the assessee on payment of duty calculated on the transaction value. One of such sale of cement in bulk was to M/s. Chettinad Builders Private Limited - CBPL who used the cement in the manufacture of RMC and also sold on payment of excise duty if any, to their customers. 2. In the course of audit of the assessee by LTU, the audit team appears to have noticed the price charged for OPC 53 grade cement for one of the industrial customers was higher than the price charged to CBPL; they also appear to have noticed in the assessee‟s annual report for the year 2010-2011 that the taxpayer had declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A has mainly relied upon the definition under Section 4 ibid and the financial statements of the very appellant and thus confirmed the duty demands. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee appears to have approached the first appellate authority by inter alia urging that AA should have at the threshold decided whether CBPL was related person or not in terms of Section 4; he cannot borrow the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1962 or the Accounting Standard ibid. They prayed for the reversal of the order in original and the demands therein. However, even the first appellate authority having dismissed their appeal, thereby upholding the demands confirmed by the original Authority, the present appeals have been filed before this forum. 4. Shri R. Par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany, the same cannot be inferred as a related party. 5. It was also contended, without prejudice, that the transaction value relating to the supply of cement to CBPL should not have been interfered with and the price adopted for quantification of differential duty ought to have been construed as cum-duty price as per the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Limited. In that view, even the penalty imposed is not in accordance with law. For the same reason, it was also contended that the invocation of extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to section 11 A of the Act could not have been invoked. 6. Per contra, Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Addnl. Commissioner appearing for the Respondent, supported the findings of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng such statutory notice, instead of clarifying, rather counters the revenue Authority to adduce documentary evidence in support of its doubt/suspicion, then that will not cause an end to the litigation, rather would become the starting point. 10. Strangely, when SCN was issued requiring the explanation, the appellant‟s only explanation was that whatever declared in their Annual reports/Financial statements was only for the Income-tax purpose, as per AS 18 and hence, the Central Excise Authority cannot barrow anything from the same. But it has never bothered to explain what exactly is their relation, either in response to the SCN or at any point in time later, since it was relevant as they only declared CBPL as „Associate‟....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lysed the scope of „related party‟ which was the core issue. In the case on hand, it is not the allegation of the Revenue that the said CBPL was a/was not a related party to the appellant, in any manner, but it was a clear admission by the appellant itself. We have observed from the very Show Cause Notice itself that the appellant had made disclosures in its Annual Reports, Form 3CD reports as to CBPL being its associated person, which triggered the whole issue. Further, in their reply to the Show Cause Notice, the appellant has referred to a table at Annexure-I to their reply wherein, it was attempted to explain that the selling price to CBPL was more than the selling price in respect of independent buyers. But however, very co....