TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... known as M/s. Track Fujico Air Systems Ltd. Konigal are engaged in the manufacture of air-conditioning equipments and parts which are excisable. They manufacture two types of air-conditioners namely :- (1) Window Air-conditioner. (2) Split Air-conditioners. 3. On the basis of intelligence that the appellants were evading Central Excise duty, investigations were conducted. The appellants were clearing the goods manufactured by them through M/s. Track Air Conditioners (P) Ltd. Bangalore (Known as TAPL) having sales offices at Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai. The management of both M/s. TASL & M/s. TAPL was common and they were controlled by one Shri Anil Dev Director of both the companies. The purchase orders were obtai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner held that there was under-valuation in respect of excisable goods cleared to M/s. TAPL and appellant is liable to pay differential duty of Rs. 10,80,114/- on this account. The Commissioner found that the appellants availed irregular Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 47,456/- as they had cleared certain components on which Modvat credit had been taken without payment of Central Excise duty or without reversing the appropriate Modvat credit. He further held that the amount collected by M/s. TAPL for work erection and commissioning of air-conditioning equipment manufactured by M/s. TASL is includible in the assessable value and a differential duty of Rs. 40,43,034/- is recoverable under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd advertisement expenses by buyer also does not make him a related person. The learned Advocate contended that M/s. TASL and TAPL are separate legal entities and they cannot be considered as related persons. The Commissioner has taken into account, the following facts to arrive at the conclusion that M/s. TASL and M/s. TAPL are related. (1) Both units are family concerns of with Shri Anil Dev as common Director. (2) Shri Pasha, Ex-Director of M/s. TASL conceded that he was merely a dummy director and Shri Anil Dev managed every thing. (3) M/s. TAPL procured orders and directed the customers to place purchase orders on M/s. TASL for equipment and on M/s. TAPL for erection and installation. (4) M/s TAPL lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held that there is no bar on the authorities to lift the corporate veil and the principle that a Company under Companies Act is a separate entity and therefore where the manufacture and the buyer are two separate entities and cannot be related within the meaning of Section 44C of the Central Excise Act is not of universal application. 8. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the appellants and M/s. TAPL for all practical purposes function as a single unit only and transaction between the appellant and M/s. TAPL does not appeared to be on a principal to principal basis. The Commissioner has enumerated several grounds to hold that the appellants and M/s. TAPL are related. Each ground in itself may not be suffici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose charged to TAPL, hence the price of goods sold to independent buyers should be taken for calculation of the duty. In case, the price to independent buyer is not available, the price at which M/s TAPL sold the goods to other buyers should be taken for calculating the duty. On this basis the differential duty as to be re-quantified. As it is not very clear as to how the Commissioner arrived at the differential duty of Rs. 10,80,114/- confirmed by him. As regards the irregular availment of Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 47,456/-, the appellants have not contested the point. Hence we confirm the Commissioner's decision in this regard. 12. As regard the inclusion of charges for erection, commissioning, etc., the appellants have cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Division. The main issue involved in the Dy. Commissioner's order is the inclusion of charges for ancillary works/erection, commissioning, etc., done by the assessee at their premises are includible in the assessable value. Citing various decisions the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the erection charges are not includible in the assessable value. In view of our findings relating to Appeal No. E/106/2000 above, we hold that the OIA is legal and proper. Hence, the departmental appeal is rejected. Appeal No. 659/2002 14. This appeal has been filed against the Commissioner's OIO 6/02 dated 8-3-2002. In this case, the show cause notice has been issued on 4-6-2001, for payment of dif....