9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shna Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, M.P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, Ms. L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, Hemant Bajaj, Ambarish Pandey, Anandh K. and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER Respondent (BIL) is a distributor of AKAI products & purchased "AKAI" brand Colour TV Sets manufactured in India on job work basis from manufacturers including M/s. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide its order in original dated 27-1-1999 held that the project report could not be called a device to reduce the burden of duty since at the time when the project report was prepared by the respondents, the CTV's attracted specific rate of duty. The price at which JRE sold goods were comparable to the prices charged by other manufacturers similarly placed for identical goods i.e. Uptron etc. 5.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of JRE was cover-up operation and concluded that JRE had accepted loans which were returned with interest to the manufacturer and hence the services of the respondent no. 2 were adequately compensated. Thus, relationship between the BIL & JRE was on principal to principal basis and the value charges by the job workers reprinted the assessable value. 8. It is apparent from the reading of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L on the basis of the alleged relationship. On this aspect the case is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by the judgment of this very Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. M/s. Detergents India Ltd. & Anr. in C.A. Nos. 9049-9051 of 2003 decided on 8-4-2015 [2015 (318) E.L.T. 552 (S.C.)]. 9. As a result, we find no merit in the present appeals. These are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
