TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ('CESTAT' for short) in Appeal NO. ST-21349/2014. 2. The CESTAT by order impugned allowed the appeal setting aside the Order-in-original No.02/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. 3. The brief outline of the facts leading to the filing of the appeal by the Revenue are as under: 4. The respondent is a manufacturer of parts and accessories of buses falling under Chapter 87 sub-heading 87082900 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ('CETA' for short). During the verification of refunds claim dated 08.12.2011, the Revenue noticed that no duty was paid on the manufactured body built motor vehicles for the period May 2008 to July 2012. An investigation was probe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iv) The manufacturer of the said vehicles should not have manufactured the vehicles on account of the chassis manufacturer; and v) The manufacturer of such vehicles should not have manufactured the chassis by himself. 7. The revenue opposed the contentions of the respondent on the count that since the ownership of chassis was continued to be vested with chassis manufacturer VIPL i.e., Volvo India Private Limited ('VIPL' for short) and by operation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states about the 'related person' found in both the undertakings, since both the companies are under the same management and control of common entity i.e., 'AB Volvo', Sweden. In the circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. The Tribunal on these aspects of the matter, held that the respondent before it is admitted and are eligible to the benefit of exemption provided under Notification stated supra. 11. Having held so, the Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the order in original passed by the Commissioner. It is this order passed by the Tribunal that is called in question by the revenue in this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (i) WHETHER, the CESTAT has committed an error in ignoring the definition or related person contained in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act which disentitles the Respondent from claiming the benefit of Notification No. 6/2006 and 12/2012? (ii) WHETHER in the facts of the case, the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... envisaged under Section 4 of the C.E. Act. He further submits that once Section 4 is read with Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012, it disentitles the respondent from claiming any benefit of exemptions provided under the Notifications supra. 14. The learned counsel underscores his arguments on the point 'related person', inasmuch as both the entities in India operating their activities are owned and controlled by a common entity 'AB Volvo', Sweden, though the chassis were shown to be sold, still the ownership continues with M/s VIPL (manufacturer of chassis), being part of the same entity. In these circumstances, respondent is not entitled for any benefit under the Notification to claim exemption. 15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tend that, ownership still vests with the manufacturer of chassis, on the premise that they are being part of the same common entity. In view of the fact that, both the respondent and VIPL are distinct legal entities, operating in India, since both are incorporated independently under the India Companies Act, 1956. 18. He further argues that there is no condition appended to the sale, which would indicate that despite sale, the transfer of possession is incomplete. Sri. Ravi Raghavan submits that the Tribunal being the last finding authority has passed a considered and reasoned order allowing the appeal, setting aside the order impugned, holding that the respondent is entitled for the benefit under the Notification for having fulfilled t....