9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he country. The MRP for the torches is the same for the consumers through out the country. 2. For Excise Duty purpose, the appellants have shown much lower value for their sale to LNL compared to the price at which they themselves are paying duty for transfer of the torches to their own Depots, for subsequent retail sale. The Adjudicating Commissioner has ordered assessment of sales LNL at the same price at which the appellants themselves have cleared the impugned goods for transfer to their own depot. The appellants are in appeal before us against this impugned order. The adjudicating Commissioner has also ordered payment of interest under Section 11AB on duty demand of Rs. 23, 86,944/- confirmed by him. In addition, he has imposed an equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the sale. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants has argued at length to say that the appellants and LNL cannot be considered as related persons. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner has in his order held that sufficient material, including the fact that in respect of the sales to LNL, no royalty was being included (which was required to be paid by the appellants for undertaking the manufacture of the impugned "NOVINO" Torches using the Brand name of LNL), exists to come to a conclusion that price was not the sole consideration of sale. 5. The provisions of Section 4 require that the buyer should not be a related person for the price to be accepted. It also independently requires that the price should be the sale consideration fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating Commissioner has adequately dealt with this contention and has recorded in his findings that various officers of the appellant company, in their statements, have admitted the fact that the trade mark "NOVINO' belongs to LNL was not declared and the agreements between the appellant and LNL were also not disclosed apart from the fact that non inclusion of royalty in sales to LNL was suppressed. No price lists were also filed by the appellants though they were required to do so under Rule 173C. 8. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the price adopted by the lower authority and the duty demand confirmed by him are in order. As regards interest and penalty we are of the view that the same cannot be imposed u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
