TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value" was declared. The assessable value declared was the price at which the pressure cookers were sold by the petitioner to Messrs. Vijay trading Corporation. The petitioner requested the Excise authorities to complete the assessment on that basis for the purposes of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The price-list was approved by the Customs authorities on November 18, 1972. The petitioner sought confirmation and that was also given by letter dated December 15, 1972. 3. The Excise authorities served a show cause notice dated June 21, 1974 on the petitioner stating, that it appears that M/s. Vijay Trading Corporation were engaged in the manufacture of pressure cookers and the price declared by the petitioner was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on were really the manufacturers and the price charged by them to their dealers or distributors is the wholesale cash price within the meaning of Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on three grounds. The first is that the pressure cookers manufactured by the petitioner bear the trade mark of Messrs. Vijay Trading Corporation. The second ground is that the entire production is supplied exclusively by the petitioner to M/s. Vijay Trading Corporation and the last ground is that the petitioner has no interest in the commercial sale of the products as all the expenses on advertisements are incurred by M/s. Vijay Trading Corporation. In my judgment, all these three grounds would not lead to the conclusion that the agreement bet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt between the petitioner and M/s. Vijay Trading Corporation and that fact also indicates that the real manufacturer was M/s. Vijay Trading Corporation. The Excise authorities did not come to the conclusion that the agreement was bogus or not genuine and the mere fact that it is not in writing is not sufficient to conclude that the agreement was not at arms length. In my judgment, the orders of the Excise authorities are clearly erroneous and deserve to be set aside. The petitioner is also entitled to order of refund and the order of rejection of that claim is also required to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of paragraph 19 of the petition. The respondents are also d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
