TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Bajaj". The price was also settled and it was provided that the price would be subject to review from time to time depending on the market conditions. The petitioners agreed to provide facility for testing of geysers before leaving the factory and the guarantee for a period of 12 months was also given. The petitioners agreed to reimburse M/s. Bajaj electricals Limited for any damage or loss suffered due to defective manufacture. 2. In pursuance of this agreement, the petitioners supplied the water heaters to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited from 1973 onward. It is not in dispute that the factory where the water heaters are manufactured is completely owned by the petitioners and M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited have no control over the labou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etaining the goods of the petitioners till the payment of the excise duty and those detention memos are annexed as Exhibits "O" and "P" to the petition. The two orders and the two detention memos are under challenge in this petition. 4. Mr. Bhatt, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition, submitted that the prices at which the water heaters are sold to M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited were the real value at the time of removal from the factory and, therefore, should have been accepted as a wholesale cash price. The learned Counsel submitted that the goods were sold to the Company under the agreement which is at arms length. Mr. Bhatt further submitted that the mere fact that the goods were manufactured with the brand name o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere approved by me in Miscellaneous Petition No. 729 of 1974 decided on July 20, 1979, 1980 (6) E.L.T. 1 (Bom.). In view of these judgments, the finding of the Superintendent of the Central Excise that M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited was the manufacturer and the price charged by the Company should be taken into account to determine the excise duty is clearly erroneous and those two orders dated January 1, 1975 and April 1, 1975 are required to be quashed. As the two orders stand quashed, consequently the detention memos must also fail. 5. Mr. Dalal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, pointed out that in this petition, the petitioners have challenged the two order which are subsequent to the period of agreement dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
