LexCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD versus L.T.E.C. (P) LTD., BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD
v.
l.T.E.C .(P) LTD., BOMBAY
SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
B
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI ANDS. N. VARIAVA, JJ.)
Central Excise Act, 1944/Central Excise Rules, 1944:
Ss. 4(4) (c) and 1I-Air.9(2)-'Related person' -Ingredients of-Assessee
C selling projectors and other goods to another company, namely, '/', which in
turn selling the said goods to independent buyers on higher rate and collecting
excise duty from them-Assessee not paying excise duty and enjoying benefit
of exemption Notification No. 71178 dated 1.3.1978-Revenue issuing notice
to assessee on 13.4.1982 demanding excise duty along with penalty, on
D higher value fetched directly or indirectly by it from independent buyers for
the period 11.4.1978 to 19.9.1979 on the ground that company '/' was a
related person-On adjudication, excise duty and penalty confirmed-Tribunal
allowing the appeal of assessee holding that company '/' was not a related
person, and as regards penalty, it held that there was no suppression on
behalf of assessee and as such larger period of limitation u!s. J l-A was not
E available-Held, assessee and Company '/'had common Directors and they
were relatives of one another-Both the companies were family concerns and
their benefits were shared by members of one and the same family-Thus
mutuality of interest between the two is apparent-The finding of the Tribunal
F
that the two companies were not related persons is set aside.
Union of India and Ors. etc. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd etc.
etc., (19841 I SCR 347 and Union of India and Ors. v. A tic Industries ltd
(1984( 3 sec 575, relied on.
S.11-A-Notice for demanding excise duty and imposing penalty -
G Limitation-Sale to related person-Notice issued on l /.4. /982 for the period
13.4.1978 to 29.9.1979-Held, assessee had disclosed the correct facts
including the price at which the goods were sold to related person and the
difference in the price-Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any
suppression on the part of assessee.:_On facts, larger period of limitation
provided u/s.11-A is not available to Revenue-Show cauo·e notice is far
H
492
....,.
C.C.E. v. 1.T.E.C. (P) LTD.
493
beyond the period of six months-Revenue not entitled to claim any difference A
of duty.
Words and Phrases:
Expression 'related person '-Meaning of in the context of s.4(4){c) of
Central Excise Act, I 944.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 736of1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.7.1991 of the Central Excise
Customs and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ED/SB/A.No.
777/83-A in F.O. No. 532/9I-A.
C
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Rajiv Nanda and B. Krishna Prasad,
for the Appellant.
R.P. Bhan, M.N. Shroff and Chirag M. Shroff, for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is from the judgment and order No.
532/91-A of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal No. ED/SB. A. No. 777/83-A dated July 25, I991.
The respondent-assessee was selling projectors and other goods to
Mis. International Talkie Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
'Mis. International'). It was also enjoying the benefit of exemption under
Notification 71178 dated March I, 1978. On the ground that M/s.-ffiternational
D
E
was a related person within the meaning of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for
short, 'the Excise Act'), the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a notice F
on April 13, 1982 for the period April 11, 1978 to September 29, 1979 to the
respondent to show cause as to why the duty at appropriate rate under Rule
9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the higher value fetched directly or
indirectly by it from the independent buyers shculd not be charged when
they were not paying excise duty, in view of the benefit of the Notification G
71178, and as to why penalty should not be imposed. After adjudication, the
duty and penalty were confirmed. On appeal, the Tribunal accepted the
findings recorded by the adjudicating authority and held that the respondent
and Mis. International were not related persons. In regard to the application
of larger period of limitation under Section 11-A of the Excise Act, the
Tribunal found that there was no suppression of fact by the respondent and, H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A therefore, the benefit of Section 11-A was not available to the RExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.