Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RUMAPALAND H.K. SEMA, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE II, CHENNAI APPELLANT;
VERSUS
BEACON NEYRPIC LTD., COIMBATORE, CHENNAIRESPONDENT.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7356 OF 2001, DECIDED ON OCTOBER 26, 2005
Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 -Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 4(1)(b-applicability of Rules- Even if assessee was related to its subsidiary, by itself would not be sufficient for the purpose of invoking the Rules of 1975 read with Section 4(1)(a) of the Act of 1944. The Department must show that the relationship has introduced an element other than purely commercial consideration in effecting the sale by the assessee to BCL- No such evidence produced by the Revenue- Appeal therefore dismissed. [Para 1]
ORDER
1. ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATED TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY I.E. M/S BEST & CROMPTON LTD. (BCL), THIS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE CENTRAL EXCISE (VALUATION) RULES, 1975 READ WITH SECTION 4(1)(A) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944. THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE B TO GO FURTHER AND SHOW THAT THE RELATIONSHIP HAS INTRODUCED AN ELEMENT OTHER THAN PURELY COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION IN EFFECTING THE SALE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BCL. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE.
2. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
