2000 (7) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s and penalties imposed on the appellants therein. The Bench also ordered those appeals to be posted today, 27-7-2000 in case appeals are filed by M/s. Philips India Ltd. Appeal filed by M/s. Philips India Ltd. is E/2324/2000-A. Along with that appeal, they moved application No. E/1265/2000-A praying for staying the operation of the impugned order wherein duty and penalty have been imposed. In view of the earlier order on the stay applications filed in the connected appeals, we took up appeal E/2324/2000-A also for final disposal along with the earlier appeals. 2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows. 3. M/s. Dixon Utilities and Exports Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of CTVs and other audio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Company case was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1819/91. By judgment dated 20-7-2000, their Lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the said decision holding that issue therein is covered by the principles laid down in Ujagar Prints case. In that decision, their Lordships came to the conclusion that any profit obtained or expenses incurred by the brand name holder cannot be included in the assessable value of the product. 5. Show cause notices were issued to M/s. Dixon Utilities (noticee No. 1), M/s. Philips India Ltd., M/s. Entel Ltd. and M/s. Singer India Ltd. (noticees No. 2 in the respective notices) and the officers of noticees 1 and 2. As stated earlier, M/s. Dixon Utilities manufacture CTVs and other au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Prints v. Union of India reported in 1989 (38) E.L.T. 535 as clarified in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493. Nowhere in the impugned order the Commissioner stated that the duty paid by M/s. Dixon Utilities was not in conformity with those principles. In other words, the Commissioner had nowhere found that even on going through those principles, differential duty is recoverable from any of the noticees. In this situation, we are left with no option but to state that duty was, in fact, paid by M/s. Dixon Utilities and Exports Ltd. strictly following the principles stated by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case. Reliance placed by the Commissioner on the decision of the Tribunal in Pawan Biscuit Co. case reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 595 cannot be of any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X