Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Lakme Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 8 August, 2001
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 74.47 crores and penalty of Rs. 2 crores. The duty had been demanded and penalty imposed, on the finding of the commissioner (Appeals), confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner that Lakme Ltd., the applicant, is related to Lakme Lever Ltd., and the value for assessment of the goods manufactured by Lakme Ltd. should be the price at which Lakme Lever Ltd., which was its sole purchaser, sold the goods through its dealers.
2. The departmental representative sought adjournment on the ground that the decision of the Tribunal in the appeal by Godrej Soaps Ltd., involving identical issue, had been reserved. however, Mr. Atul Setalvad, Advocate who had appeared for Godrej & Boyce ltd., also happened to be present in court, explained the issues in that case, and on the opinion of Mr. G.N. Srinivasan, Member (Judicial) who was a member of the bench, that the issues were not similar, we declined to adjourn. We therefore heard ex parte on stay application.
3. Counsel for the applicant points out that an identical issue has ben considered by the Tribunal in its decision in CCE vs. Ralliwolf Ltd. 1998 (100) ELT 528. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Atic Industries 1984 (17) ELT 323, the bench had held that there was no relationship between Ralliwolf Ltd., the manufacturer, in which Rallis India ltd. held 60% shareholding. The departmental representative cites, in response, the judgment of the Supreme court in Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. vs. CCE 1998 (99) ELT 202. A considerable part of the assets, totally Rs. 32 crores Lakme Lever Ltd. would have been provided by Lakme Ltd., which is an 80% stock holder. In that situation, the Calcutta Chromotype judgment would apply.
4. That may perhaps be the case. However the show cause notice does not allege that Lakme Lever Ltd. had an identity beyond its corporate identity, requiring the corporate mask to be lifted to true manufacturer.
5. In these circumstances, we find a good prima facie case for the applicant and waive deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed, and stay their recovery.
6. On request of the counsel for the applicant we list the appeal for hearing on 18th September, 2001.