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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more