TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Appellant None For the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok K. Arya The Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.13/2008 dated 30.1.2008 whereunder the proceedings demanding duty of Central Excise on Refrigerators and Deep Freezers from the appellant on the enhanced value at which the subject goods were sold by the buyer of the Respondent, M/s. BPL were dropped. 2. Brief facts are that: (i) M/s. B. S. Refrigerators are manufacturers of refrigerators and deep freezers falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA). (ii) The products manufactured by the Respondent are sold through M/s. BPL Ltd., Bangalore, who m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. . (a) .. (b) .. (c) .. (d) Even on merits the case of Revenue is found to be not sustainable for the following reasons. (i) The Assistant Commissioner had relied upon three documents to observe that the internal documents of the Respondents showed that the retail price is being determined by the Respondents. The three documents are letters dated 9-4-94, 2-12-94 and 5-12-94. The Assistant Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the price charged for the products by BSUA from BPL is in the nature of a transfer price and such transfer price is not the normal price under Section 4. Though he has not elaborated further, the reasons for holding such sale price as not normal price, it seems to suggest that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the reduction of the sale price and the officials of BSUA are refusing to accept such price reductions as is indicated in the very correspondence relied by the Assistant Commissioner, it is incredible for anybody to suggest/conclude that the transactions are not in the nature of principal to principal sale transactions. If Director-Marketing of BPL loosely mentions the sale price as transfer price , it does not become a stock-transfer price between one Division and the other. The legal consequences flowing from the actual sale of the goods between BSUA and BPL cannot be obliterated by loose reference by one official of a company and that cannot be taken as a legal proof that the sale did not take place. A perusal of these documents show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company. The claim made by Shri T.P.G. Nambiar which are in nature of negotiation offers and not facts has been wrongly appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner. (iii) The Assistant Commissioner has next referred to letters dated 13-7-94 and 4-7-94 to observe that the Respondents were monitoring the collections made by BPL. In any case such interest shown in collection of outstanding or helping the same will not exhibit a relationship as envisaged under the Central Excise law. It was submitted that letters were written by the Respondents to M/s. BPL Ltd., only in respect of the sales made by the Respondents to dealers prior to 1-4-94. The same dealers were buying from M/s. BPL Ltd., after 1-4-94. Therefore, there appears nothing u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducts of the Respondent company will be integrated with CMO which could mean that the goods are going to be sold to M/s. BPL Ltd., who will be selling the same further in the market. In other words, the entire goods would be sold in wholesale to M/s. BPL Ltd., for further sale by M/s. BPL Ltd. This cannot ipso facto be treated as showing mutuality of business interest in each other in order to treat them as related person under Section 4 (4) (c) for treating the price of M/s. BPL Ltd., as the basis for determination of assessable value. Hence, the aforesaid letter dated 18-11-93 has no bearing on the issue. (v) The Respondents before us, rely on the following decisions in support of the submissions made by them and we find that these c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (142) E.L.T. 706 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 926]. (c) On advertisement expenses incurred by buyers not includible (1) Corner Stone Brands Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 257. (2) Philips India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.). (3) Besta Cosmetics Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 237. (4) Precision Instrument Co. v. CCE - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 99 (5) Shri Ram Honda Power Equipment Co. v. CCE, Meerut - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 145. (6) Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore - 2001 (137) E.L.T. 924. 4.1 In case of above matter decided by the Tribunal, the Revenue filed appeal before the Hon ble Supreme Court, who in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. B.S. Appliances Ltd.: 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
