1991 (12) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Review show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 treated as an appeal.
2. Assessment dispute regarding the assessable value of safety razor blades sold to specific parties.
3. Similarity of facts with a previous Tribunal order related to valuation of goods sold to brand name owners.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a transferred appeal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, involving a review show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Act. The appeal was based on written submissions as requested by the respondents, who were manufacturers of safety razor blades. The Department's representative, the JDR, pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal based on the review show cause notice.

2. The main issue in the case revolved around the assessment of the assessable value of safety razor blades sold by the appellants to specific parties. The Range Superintendent disputed the price declared by the assessee, arguing that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the goods were marketed by the buyers. This led to a challenge of the Assistant Collector's orders before the Collector (Appeals) and subsequently to the issuance of a review show cause notice.

3. The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were similar to a previous order (Order No. 602-603/86-A) involving a dispute over the valuation of goods sold to brand name owners. The Tribunal referred to relevant paragraphs from the earlier order, highlighting the previous legal proceedings between the parties and the judgments that favored the appellants' position. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of merit based on the discussions and previous legal precedents.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the review show cause notice being treated as an appeal, the assessment dispute over the assessable value of safety razor blades, and the similarity of facts with a previous Tribunal order regarding the valuation of goods sold to brand name owners. The decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the lack of merit in the arguments presented and the alignment of the present case with previous legal outcomes.