Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3263

Whether or not the respondent who is public limited company is to be treated relative of buyer who has paid central excise for sale of final products.

Case:- COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR  Versus  AKASH ISPAT LTD.

Citation:- 2016 (337) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Del.)       

Brief Facts:- The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots liable to Central Excise duty. The proceedings were initiated against them for short payment of Central Excise duty on the goods cleared to related buyers. After due process, the Original Authority vide order dated 13-11-2006 held that the respondents are liable to pay the differential duty of Rs. 16,78,974/- with interest. He imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the appellant. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vides order dated 22-3-2007 set aside the order and allowed the appeal.

Appellant’s Contention:-Ld. AR reiterated the grounds in the appeal. He submitted that the Directors, Partners, Proprietors of the respondent and the buyers’ units were common/relatives in terms of Schedule-IA of Section 6 of the Companies Act, having relationship and running, controlling and managing the inter-connected undertakings. The profit accruing from the sale through related persons goes to the same family or relative, as deemed in Section 4(3)(b) read with Section 2(41) of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereby mutuality of interest gets established and Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable.

Respondent Contention:-None appeared for respondent.

Reasoning of Judgment:-On perusal of records it is found that issue arising whether or not the respondent paid correct Central Excise duty for sale of final products to five buyers, who are said to be related to them or the declared sale value is vitiated. M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd is a Private Limited Company having three Directors. The Original Authority held that the respondent and the four buyers, who are proprietary concerns, do not fall under the category of inter-connected undertakings under Section 2(g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority found that the respondent and M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. are “inter-connected undertakings” in terms of sub-clause (iv) of Explanation-I in Section 2(g) of MRTP Act. The Original Authority further held that the respondent and all the buyers are “related in terms of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. He arrived at this conclusion treating the companies also as natural person and being “relative” of one another. The impugned order rejected the findings of the Original Authority regarding the respondent and the buyers being “relative”. It was further held that since all goods produced were not sold to these buyers, the scheme as contemplated under Rule 9 of Valuation Rules will not be applicable regarding the respondent and M/s. Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. being “inter-connected undertakings”. The lower Appellate Authority held that the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act is applicable as there is no evidence that the price charged is not the sole consideration for sale or any additional consideration was flowing directly or indirectly from the buyers to the respondent.   
    
Decision:-The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Comment:-The crux of the case is that the provisions of MRTP Act talks about inter-connectivity between two body corporate. it is an admitted fact that four out of the five buyers are proprietary concerns. The respondent is a Public Limited Company. The “relative” as defined under Section 2(41) should be in such way as specified in Section 6 of the Companies Act. In terms of Section 6, a person shall be deemed to be a relative of other, if, and only if, they are members of a HUF or husband and wife or one is related to other, in a manner like father, mother, daughter, brother, etc. A corporate entity, the respondent being a Public Limited Company, cannot be called a “relative”.

Prepared by:- Bharat

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com