9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'. They sell the aforesaid goods bearing different brand names at the same price of ₹ 34.50 plus excise duty. The above price charged by them represents the manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profits. They also pay income-tax on the income derived from the sales of these products to various parties including the aforesaid parties. They are an independent entity and the transactions in question are independent transactions of sale in the normal course of business. Therefore the finding of the Assistant Collector that the aforesaid sales of the goods are not actual sales is not correct. They have further contended that they are not the owners of the brand names and hence they cannot include the price of the brand in the cost of man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor passed his order and the show cause notice issued for recovery of differential duty cannot and should not be considered as a demand of duty. We reproduce below the decisions of the Supreme Court of India, all Indian High Courts, Government of India, Central Board of Excise and Customs and Appellate Collectors of Central Excise. 3. I have very carefully considered all the above submissions and observe that the first point which needs to be determined is whether the sale of the goods manufactured by the appellants in the brand name of others is an independent sale at arms length or not. The appellants manufacture domestic electrical appliances against separate agreement entered into with M/s. National Radio and Electronics Ltd. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be an identical one because units on whose behalf M/s. Hind Lamps were at that time manufacturing electric bulbs etc. were the subsidiaries of M/s. Hind Lamps. Moreover each individual case has to be decided on own merits and an order passed ii, U.P. cannot be binding on a case in Delhi. 4. About the legal pleas raised in the appeals, I observe that under rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules time limit for recovery of short levy or refund of excess levy has been raised to one year by substituting the expression "three months" by the expression "one year" in rules 10 and 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The above amendment does not give any reason to warrant the interpretation that because the appellants were working under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty is made when the show cause notice is served on the appellants, who are given a chance to say why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice. Therefore the argument that a demand cannot be considered to be properly made till an order has been passed by the Assistant Collector is against the above rule and hence untenable. 5. I find that in case relating to appeal C. No. 131-CE/Appl/DLH/ 75 the demand has been made under rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules while in Appeal No. 132-CE/Appl/DLH/75 a demand has been made under rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules. The demand has been raised in both the cases for similar reasons and if the demand is justified under rule 10, a demand on the same ground cannot be made under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
