TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RCI). The two companies have entered into commercial agreement from time to time and have mutually agreed to a price that shall be charged by the respondents from RCI of the sale of the goods to RCI. The respondents paid duty on the wholesale price charged by them from RCI. The respondents were issued with various show cause notices by the department wherein various amounts were demanded on, inter alia, the following grounds : (i) that the respondents are subordinate manufacturer of RCI and that RCI is the actual manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f). (ii) that the price at which RCI sold the goods to its dealers and wholesale buyers should form the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act. 1.2 First sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he agreement that certain know-how information and data were given by RCI to the respondents for the manufacture of the products in question and for these the respondents did not pay any remuneration to RCI. The respondents were refrained from using the same for any other purpose and to keep them confidential. (3) agreement shows that the trade marks belongs to RCI which was allowed to be used by the respondents. (4) the products are marked as follows : - Made in India Reckitt Colman, Calcutta . The retail packing does not indicate anywhere that the goods have been manufactured by the respondents. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is contended by the Revenue that RCI is to be treated as the manufactures of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 4(1)(a) ibid. 3. Opposing the contentions the learned Advocate for the respondents submits that apart from dealing the various allegations on merits, as alleged in the show cause notice, the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise has relied on the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The said order-in-original is dated 22-7-1991, as already mentioned above. The Board has not reviewed the said order-in-original dated 22-7-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and therefore, it has become final. The impugned order also deals with every allegation made in the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Collector (Appeals). All the points relating to both the allegations, namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise should take a different in filing these appeals before the Tribunal. Nevertheless, we have gone through the impugned order and we find the same to have reached the correct conclusion in respect of both the main allegations, as mentioned above. It cannot be held on the basis of the agreement in question that RCI is the manufacturer on whose behalf the goods have been manufactured by the respondents. It also cannot be held that the prices at which the goods were sold by the respondents to RCI, in any way, was influenced by considerations other than the normal commercial ones. The agreement between the RCI and the respondents, on the face of the terms as expressed therein is an agreement between [two] principals. The reliance placed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
