TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposit of the duty demanded and the penalties imposed. The applications are opposed by Shri K. Srivastava, learned SDR. We have heard both the sides. M/s. Plus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Plus) manufactures detergent powder and cakes and the present dispute is limited to cakes. M/s. Pratibha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as Pratibha) manufactures toilet soaps and detergent cakes and the dispute relates to both. The brand name of the detergent cake manufactured by both these companies belong to M/s. Corona Cosmetics Chemicals (Corona). The brand name of the toilet soap manufactured by Pratibha belongs to Pratibha. The period involved in the case of Plus is July, 1985 to January, 1995 and covered by three successive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner found that Corona was selling these goods to wholesale dealers at prices substantially higher than prices charged by Plus and Pratibha and Corona was buying the entire production of two manufacturers. On verification of the records, we find that the price difference in some cases is around 8.33% and other cases around 20% or slightly more. It is also found that Corona is the brand name owner of the brand used by Plus and Pratibha for detergent cakes. Pratibha is owner for the toilet cakes. The manufacturers had entered into agreements with Corona, according to which, Corona had the right of testing the goods and rejecting defective goods which alone the two manufacturers could sell without brand name to other parties. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants referred to the above circumstances and stated that even if all the circumstances existed, they cannot lead to the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner. It is pointed out that the Commissioner has not indicated that the prices charged by the two manufacturers to Corona were in any way less than the prices which were ordinarily charged by other manufacturers to their wholesale dealers and in the absence of such data, there cannot be any inference against appellants. It is pointed out that there is bound to be some concession in price since Corona was the sole buyer of the products manufactured by the two companies and the brand name used by Plus and one of the brand names used by them belong to Corona. Since the two brand names ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of the brand names belonging to Pratibha and Shri P.A. Kharwadkar, his wife and daughter standing guarantee for loan in favour of Pratibha. 6. Having applied our mind to the various contentions raised by both the sides, we are of the opinion that certain aspects have not been dealt with by the Commissioner and the appellants have an arguable case, but we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion at this stage without considering all the documents and materials which can be done only at the time of hearing of the appeals. On the question of limitation, it is contended that copies of agreement had been submitted along with the price list and there was no suppression. It is point out by the department that the various circumstances relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
