TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eddy, J.]. - The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal allowing an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise against the decision of the Collector (Appeals). 2.The appellant, M/s. United Glass, Bangalore, is not a separate legal entity. It is a manufacturing unit within the Khoday Group of Industries. Khoday Distilleries Limited (K.D.L.) is said to be the holding company. One of the companies held by K.D.L. was Khoday Brewing and Distilling Industries Private Limited (K.D.B.I.) of which the appellant is a division. There is a partnership firm, Khoday, RCA. The partners of the said firm are all members of the Khoday family which controls the K.D.L. and K.D.B.I. The main ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant, the Assistant Collector confirmed the values proposed in the show cause notices. The appeal preferred by the appellant was, however, allowed by the Collector (Appeals) who directed the Assistant Collector to adopt the sale price charged by the appellant to others as the basis and to finalise the value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. Against the decision of the Collector (Appeals), the Collector of Central Excise went in appeal to the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on the following findings : That the price declared by the appellant was far below the(a) cost price and is totally unacceptable. The price declared was only a fraction of the price charged by M/s. Alembic Glass Industries for similar glass bottles. The sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and that the price of comparable bottles manufactured by Alembic Glass Industries should be taken as the bases, the Tribunal should have directed that prices of Alembic alone should be uniformly adopted as the value of all types of bottles manufactured by the appellant. It could not have directed the determination on a dual and mutually inconsistent bases, viz., where the prices of Alembic are higher than the prices declared by the appellant, the prices of Alembic should be adopted but where the prices of Alembic were lower than the prices declared by the appellant, the appellant's prices should be adopted. The learned counsel submitted that the course adopted by the Tribunal is inequitable besides being illegal. Sri Joseph Vellapally, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; where the assessee so arranges that the goods are(iii) generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related person shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Provided that in determining the value under this sub-clause the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods, if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on(ii) the cost of production or manufacture, including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods; where the assessee so arranges that the excisable goods are(c) generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person and the value cannot be determined under clause (iii) of the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the Rule says, adopt the value of the comparable goods manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee. Sri Lakshmi Kumaran also agrees that this is the proper Rule applicable though he arrives at this Rule through clause (c) of Rule 6(b). What he contends is that once the Revenue adopts the value of another assessee manufacturing similar goods, that alone should be the basis and that the Revenue cannot adopt or shift to another basis. It is not possible to agree. The submission of the learned counsel ignores the fact that the bottles manufactured by the appellant are of different values, i.e., of different sizes and shapes. The value of each type of bottles is different. Price lists filed by the assessee indicate the value of ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
