Judgment:
1. These three appeals arise out of Order-in-Original No.80(sic) dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh. By this order M/s. Bharti Telcom Ltd. (BTL) were directed to pay duty of Rs.2,54,15,935 and a like sum as penalty. M/s. Siemans Telecom Ltd. (STL) has been saddled with a penalty of Rs.50,00,000. Shri Rakesh Bharti Mittal, Managing Director of M/s. Bharti Telecom Ltd. was directed to pay penalty of Rs.1,25,00,000. In these appeals demand of duty and imposition of penalty are under challenge.
2. Along with the appeals, applications have been moved for stay of operation of the order impugned as also to waive pre-deposit as condition precedent for entertaining the appeals. We heard Learned Counsel representing the appellants and the Learned Departmental Representative.
3. In the course we are going to adopt, we do not think it necessary to narrate the various contentions raised by the parties in these proceedings. Suffice it to say, that M/s. BTL sells 75% of their produce to Department of Telecommunication and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 25% of the remaining produce are sold to STL, which came into existence in the year 1995-96. According to the Department, STL is related to BTL. The sale of 25% of the produce by BTL to STL is not at arms length, that STL's sale price to their dealers must be taken as sale price of 25% of produce by STL. On this basis differential duty has been claimed orders passed. A chart showing the price of comparable models sold to DOT/STL is produced in this case (seen at page 508).
That statement shows that the price at which the goods were sold to STL were comparable with the price at which identical goods were sold to DOT. On this basis Learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that even if the plea of relationship between BTL and STL is presumed for arguments sake, since the price has not been suppressed on account of the relationship, the proceedings initiated by the Department are untenable. It is settled law that if relationship between the two parties has not gone to suppress the price of the goods sold by one to the other, the relationship by itself cannot be taken as sufficient reason to reject the sale price. Since the statement (seen at page 508) prima facie shows that the relationship has not adversely affected the price, we are inclined to reduce the amount to be deposited as condition precedent for entertaining the appeals. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000 within six weeks from today. On such deposit, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps to realise the duty or penalty claimed as per the impugned order until further orders. Appeals will come up for final hearing on 3.8.2001.