1998 (9) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment of appeals due to counsel's unavailability.
2. Allegation of related party transactions and pricing in the manufacture of wires and cables.

Issue 1: Request for adjournment of appeals
The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeals citing their counsel's unavailability due to prior commitments. The tribunal, however, rejected the request as they deemed the reasons provided were not valid for adjournment in old cases. The appellant's assistant declined to present any arguments, and the tribunal proceeded to hear the respondent's representative and reviewed the case documents.

Issue 2: Allegation of related party transactions and pricing
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing wires and cables, sold a significant portion of its products to another entity, DSSL, which further sold the goods to wholesale dealers. The remaining products were sold to industrial consumers. The dispute arose when authorities alleged that DSSL was acting as a selling agent for the appellant, leading to related party transactions under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities issued show cause notices proposing to base the assessable value on the price charged by DSSL to wholesalers. The appellant contested these allegations, arguing for acceptance of their declared price. The tribunal examined the agreement between the parties and found insufficient evidence to establish DSSL as a selling agent or related party. The tribunal noted the lack of details in the notices regarding the relationship between the companies or the individuals involved in their operations. Additionally, the tribunal observed that the price disparity between DSSL and industrial consumers was justified due to the different buying capacities and quantities involved. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the orders approving the price lists based on DSSL's pricing and allowed the appeals.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the request for adjournment and ruled in favor of the appellant by rejecting the allegations of related party transactions and directing the assessable value to be based on the appellant's declared price rather than DSSL's pricing to wholesalers.