Lloyds Metals & Engineers Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 14 August, 2001
(ii) "relative" shall have the meanin assigned to it in clause (41) of
Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)."
5.2. On going through the new definition of the 'related person' after
amendment and the facts of the case, we find that amendment in the
definition is of no much consequence having regard to the facts of the
case as the case of the Department is not that the respondents are
selling their entire goods through related person nor interconnected
undertakings. The case laws relied upon by the Learned Authorized
representative are mostly those where the appellants therein were
selling the goods exclusively through their related persons/connected
undertakings. The case of Fiat India Ltd (supra) was about selling at a
price less than the cost price. The facts of the present case are different.
In this case it is evident on record that a selling price to independent
buyers is available. No reasons for rejection of the declared value are
established. Learned commissioner has gone in to this aspect and spelt
out reasons in detail as to why he doesn't consider the group companies
are not related for the purposes of the Central Excise Valuation Rules.
Having gone through the findings of the commissioner, we are of the
9 E/1260, 1268, 1269/2012
opinion that when the respondents are selling their goods at the same
price to the unrelated independent buyers and the alleged related
buyers or undertakings, the question of going in to valuation Rules does
not arise. Such value can be adopted as a transaction value.
5.3. Moreover, it has been held by the adjudicating authority that if the
supplementary invoices are taken into consideration, the price at which
the goods sold to related person is same as the price at which the goods
are sold to unrelated independent buyers. Therefore, we find that the
case heavily hinges on the fact of the issuance of supplementary
invoices by the respondent to their related buyers. We find that learned
AR submits during the course of hearing that in view of the Letter F. No.
TC/KOP/372/12 dated 10.03.2022, it was informed that no
supplementary invoices had been issued by the assessee during the
period 2004 to 2008. However, this letter was neither before the
adjudicating authority for consideration nor the respondents have not
been given any opportunity to represent themselves and to show the
evidence of issuance of supplementary invoices. We are of the
considered opinion that reasonable opportunity should be given to either
parties in the interest of justice. Therefore, the issue needs to go back
to the adjudicating authority to verify the claims of the respondents with
documentary evidence.