Skip to main content

Definition of related person u/s 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944

M/s. Countech Systems Poonam and A. Bhattacharya (Partners) , M/s. Glory Hi-tech and Sudhir Dingra Director Versus CC, Faridabad

Valuation - related person u/s 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - assessable value - extended period of limitation - demand of duty with interest - imposition of penalty - constitution of firm referred - Held that: - constitutions of the firms states that the appellant M/s.Glory Hitech is company and M/s.Countech Systems is partnership firm and the trading company is also private limited company. From the constitution, it is clear that the appellants and the trading company are not related to each other in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The decision in the case of Reliance Industries Products vs. CCE [2011 (3) TMI 704 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] relied upon where it was held that The three conditions are to be satisfied before it can be inferred the existing relationship namely, (i) there should be mutuality of interest, (ii) alleged related person should be related to the assessee as per Section 4(4)(e) even in the Act and (iii) importantly the price charged from the related person was not the normal price but a price lower than the normal price and because of extra commercial consideration, the price charged was less than the normal value - the appellants are not related persons in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944

Certain advances given by trading company to the appellants - Held that: - it is routine practice in the business that buyers of the goods give certain advances to the suppliers, therefore, it cannot be said that by giving mere advances to the suppliers are having interest in the business of others.

Appellants have sold the goods to the trading company at lower price and the trading company has sold the goods on a higher price - Held that: - the appellants are selling the goods to the trading company at a agreed price and no additional benefit has been provided by the appellants to trading company. On the other hand while the goods were sold by the trading company to various banks, the additional benefits were given on the goods such as warranty, installation, commissioning, testing, after sale services, maintenance, etc. The price charged by the trading company includes these services charges, their profit and cost alongwith machines, in that circumstance, it cannot be said that the price of trading company is the influenced price of the goods sold by the appellant.

Appellant and trading company not related to each other - demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Article referred: Tax Management India.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more