TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (V.I.L.) are a public limited company incorporated in the year 1934. They manufacture pharmaceutical products. Some of them are manufactured under contract with M/s. Albert David Ltd. (A.D.L.). The issue involved in the present appeal is the assessable value of medicines so manufactured and supplied to M/s. Albert David Ltd. The impugned Order-in-Appeal has held that the entire production of Anafram Tab. is supplied to M/s. A.D.L. who market the product. Therefore it is clear that the product enter in the first stream of wholesale trade from the hands of M/s. A.D.L. So, the assessable value shall be determined on the basis of the comparable sale namely the price at which M/s. A.D.L. is selling in the wholesale market . The Order also sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been submitted that this is not a case of goods being sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time of place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force as contemplated under Section 4(1)(2)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Shri Lahiri also submitted that it is settled law that when the supplies are under a contract, the contract prices has to be treated as assessable value. It is also settled law that the value of trade name is not to be included in the assessable value as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Joint Secretary to Govt. of India v. Foods Specialities Ltd. - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.). 5. Shri T.P. Kumar, ld. SDR has contended that the price at which goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants were receiving raw materials and packing materials from M/s. Albert David Ltd. and that Albert David is a loan licensee. The appellants have made full payments for all the raw materials and packing materials received by them even though Orders might have been placed in some cases by M/s. Albert David. In this context he referred to the contract between the appellants and M/s. Albert David and submitted that para 1 of the contract made it clear that all input cost are included in the price of the product and also 2.5% profit on the wholesale price. Further, this price was to be reviewed on a quarterly basis. Shri Lahiri submitted that once a contract price is fixed on commercial basis, the law does not permit of adopting any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
