CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Excise Tax Appeal No. 57201 of 2013 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10/CE/APPL/LDH/2013 dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-I]

M/s Thapar Ispat ltd. ……Appellant B-47, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, ……Respondent Ludhiana GST Bhawan, F-Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 WITH Excise Tax Appeal No. 50443 of 2014 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-456-13-14 dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-I] M/s Thapar Ispat ltd. ……Appellant B-47, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, ……Respondent Ludhiana GST Bhawan, F-Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 AND Excise Tax Appeal No. 52536 of 2015 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-355-14-15 dated 17.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-I] M/s Thapar Ispat ltd. ……Appellant B-47, Phase-VII, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Punjab-141010 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise, ……Respondent Ludhiana GST Bhawan, F-Block, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 APPEARANCE:

Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Yashpal Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60153-60155/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 03.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 16.02.2026 P. ANJANI KUMAR:

M/s Thapar ISPAT Ltd are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of ‘wire’; during the course of audit of the records of the appellants, it appeared to the Revenue that the appellants had sold their entire production to a single buyer i.e. M/s Hindustan Overseas Ltd (up to 9/2005) and thereafter to M/s Thapar Finance Ltd at a price of Rs. 21,971 PMT whereas the cost of production itself was Rs. 22,874 PMT and that M/s Thapar Finance Ltd and M/s Hindustan Overseas Ltd are controlled by the initial promoters of M/s Thapar ISPAT Ltd and they are purchasing most of the goods produced by the appellants; it appeared that the value declared by the appellants is not transaction value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1994 and therefore, the value requires to be re-determined in terms of Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2010. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the appellants and orders-in-

original/appeal are issued as follows which are appealed against.

2. Shri Sudeep Singh Bhangoo, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the show cause notice alleges that M/s Thapar Finance Ltd and M/s Hindustan Overseas Ltd are alleged to be controlled by the initial promoters of the appellants, the show cause notices do not specify who are those initial promoters; even if assuming, without accepting that the buyer companies were promoted by the said persons, the said companies would not become related for the purpose of Section 4; therefore, the show cause notice is vague and without any legal backing.

3. Learned Counsel further submits that though M/s Thapar Finance Ltd and M/s Hindustan Overseas Ltd hold 12.85% and 7.7% of the shares of the appellant, there are no common directors in the purchasing companies and the appellants; learned Commissioner wrongly holds that the appellants are their purchasers are inter- connected undertakings in terms of clauses (i) & (iv) of Section 4 (3) (b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 2 (g) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969; according to the MRTP Act, two body corporates can be treated as inter- connected only when they are u