2026 (7) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal Nos. E/53212/2015 and E/60815/2017), M/s Hindustan Pumps and Electrical Engineering Pvt Ltd in Appeal No. E/53213/2015 and M/s Hindustan Engineering Enterprises in Appeal No. E/60814/2017 have filed these appeal against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersible pumps falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 8413.13 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are registered with Central Excise; on the basis of an investigation conducted by the officers of the Anti-Evasion Wing of the Central Excise, Panchkula, the Revenue entertained an opinion that these two firms are related to one another as per Schedule 1A to the Cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30-61733/2025-DB dated 28.11.2025. 4.1 He further submits that authorities below have wrongly held that the appellant i.e. HEE 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, read with section 6 and Schedule IA of the said Act, it can be appreciated that the relationship between the natural persons have been enumerated as "relatives". Hence, two corporate entities cannot be "relative" in terms of section 4(1)3(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 2 (41) of the Companies Act, 1956. He furthe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(MMPL) during the disputed period were required to be determined under rule 9 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 being a transaction between the "related person" in terms of section 4(1)(3)(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Act read with section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956. We also find that in the appellant's own case for the earlier period this issue has been decided by this Tribunal and the Tribunal for the earlier period has held as under: 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We find that the same issue has come for consideration before this Bench in the appellant's own case for the demand raised for the period 2003-04 and 2005-06. The Bench vide Final Order No.63235-63241/2018 dated 05.10.201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect of the case, we hold that the appellant are not related persons In terms of section 4(3)(b)(li) 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 allegations. On an appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order, this Bench vide Final Order No.60628-60629/2023 dated 28.11.2023 dismissed the appeal, albeit on monetary grounds. We further find that....