9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desirous of availing the benefit of Notification No. 120/75 and submitted an application to that effect. Assistant Collector passed an order rejecting the claim for benefit of notification and this order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the manufacturer. 3. There is no dispute regarding basic facts which are that the parts of textile machinery falling under Tariff Item 68 manufactured by the appellant, a partnership firm, were being sold entirely to M/s. Shree Ramakrishna Industries and Sales Corporation another partnership, with a few of the partners common and the prices charged to the sole buyer for different kinds of parts were less than the list prices for consumers by the percentages ran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of 13% and the goods are ultimately sold to the consumers at ex-factory price and the price charged by the manufacturer is the normal price and commonality of few of the partners is not sufficient to create any relationship between the two concerns. It is also contended that proviso (iv) to the notification was not attracted. 5. The Assistant Collector passed an order denying the appellant the benefit of notification on the ground that the notice issued did not refer to any trade discount passed on to the sole buyer or deduction of any discount and the consignments had been invoiced on orders received from various parties, the invoices issued by the sole buyer make no reference to trade discount and the contention that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances that the entire production was sold to sole buyer at allegedly low price, three partners of the two concerns were common and had the benefit of the price factor and the sole buyer is created only to obtain benefit of invoice value. Collector (Appeals) considering the above circumstances and other factors relied on by the Assistant Collector held that the price charged by the manufacturer to the sole buyer was not the normal price and the price was not the sole consideration for sale [evidently as per clause (iii) of the notification]. These orders are now challenged. 7. At the outset, it has to be noticed that many of the factual circumstances relied on in the impugned orders did not find a place in the show cause notice which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods. Lower authorities appear to have borrowed the concept of "relationship" as defined in Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. A reading of the notification would make it clear that Section 4(4)(c) concept of relationship has not been incorporated therein. The relationship referred to in clause (iv) is "commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise" not only between manufacturer and the buyer but also between any person associated in business with the manufacturer and the buyer and between the manufacturer and any person associated in business with the buyer. The fact that some partners of the two firms are common by itself may not be decisive without examining who th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
