2026 (5) TMI 1583

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) CGST, Panchkula, whereby, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the Order-in-Original. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are inter-connected and both have been decided by the common impugned order, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and decision. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that M/s Hindustan Engineering Enterprises are engaged in the manufacturing of Submersible Pumps falling under Chapter Heading 841313. They were selling their products through a related marketing firm M/s Malkoh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. During the course of investigations, it was found that M/s Hindustan Engineering Enterprises had wilfully lowered th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Malkoh Marketing Pvt. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., decided vide Final Order No. 60685-60688/2024 dated 19.12.2024 (iii) Hindustan Pumps & Electrical Engineering Pvt. & Malkoh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & S.T., decided vide Final Order No. 61730-61733/2025-DB dated 28.11.2025. 4.1 He further submits that both the authorities below have wrongly held that the appellant i.e. HEE (which is a company during the relevant period of time) and MMPL are related persons in terms of section 4(1)3(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 and section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956. He further submits that perusal of section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956, r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... On the other hand, learned authorized representative for the appellant reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record, we find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been decided in favour of the appellant by this Tribunal in the decisions cited (Supra). 6. In this regard, we may refer to the findings of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Hindustan Engineering Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, vide Final Order No. 6068560688/2024 decided on 19.12.2024, wherein the Tribunal has held as under: 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the same issue has come for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aluation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, on that ground also, the charge of Revenue of under valuation is not sustainable. 15. Without going to the other aspect of the case, we hold that the appellant are not related persons in terms of section 4(3)(b)(il) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. We further find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 16.04.2013, deciding an order passed in respect of proceedings initiated against the appellants for the period January 2010 to September 2010, dropped the all....