IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.115/GHY/CE(A)/GHY/2015 dated 03.11.2015 passed by Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Guwahati.)

M/s. Jaiswal Alloys Pvt.Ltd.

(West Boragaon, NH-37, Guwahati-781003.)

…Appellant VERSUS Commr., CGST & CX, Guwahati …..Respondent (GST Bhawan, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Kedar Road, Machhkowa, Guwahati-781001.)

APPEARANCE Shri Saurabh Bagaria & Shri Indranil Banerjee, Advocates for the Appellant (s)

Shri S.K.Jha, Authorized Representative for the Revenue CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 76596/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 18.06.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 18.06.2025 Per : R. MURALIDHAR :

The appellant is manufacturer of MS Ingots and Runners. On the ground that the Appellants were clearing of their goods only to three buyers who are inter-connected/related entities of the Appellant, a Show Cause Notice was issued demanding Excise Duty for the period 2010-11 to 2012-13 by invoking the extended period provisions. After due process, the lower authorities have confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal.

2. The Ld.Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellants are not inter-connected units and they cannot even be treated as related persons. The Department has assumed that they are inter-connected/related because of the fact that some of the Directors are common. In the Show Cause Notice no factual evidence has been brought in to the effect that there is any mutuality of interest between these units with that of the Appellant unit. He further points out that a Show Cause Notice has alleged that the Appellants are “inter-connected undertakings”. He takes us through to Section 4(3)(b)(i). He submits that inter-connected undertakings fall under Section 4(3)(b)(i). He points out that the Show Cause Notice has been issued demanding the duty in terms of Rule 9. He points out that Rule 9 deals with sub- clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) of Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and excludes clause (i). Therefore, the Department could not have demanded the duty under Rule 9. He submits that on this ground itself, the confirmed demand is required to be set aside. He further submits that no documentary evidence has been adduced in the entire proceedings to show that the Appellant had mutuality of interest with the other three entities. Therefore, on this ground he submits that the Appeal may be allowed on merits.

3. He also submits that the Show Cause Notice issued on 10.07.2014 for the period 2010-11, 2012-13 is barred by limitation. He submits that the Appellant is a regular assessee with proper Central Excise registration. They have been filing their ER-1 Returns showing the value of clearance and Excise duty paid. Further they carried a bona fide belief that they cannot be treated as inter-connected units just because there are certain common Directors/Partners. He further submits that the other units have been taking the Cenvat credit for the Excise duty paid by the Appellant. Therefore, the situation is revenue neutral. The Department has not brought in any documentary evidence to the effect that the Appellant has indulged in suppression with an intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, he prays that the confirmed demand may be set aside on account of time bar also.

4. The Ld.AR for the Department reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He submits that the case of the Appellant falls under Section 4(3)(b)(iv) which says that they will be treated as related persons in case “they are so associated with they have interest, directly or indirectly in the business of each other”. The factual evidence gathered at the time of investigation clearly proves that they are all working under the group of Brahmaputra Group of Industr