2006 (1) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of appellant's name due to company name change.
2. Allegations of under-valuation and repacking of goods by agencies.
3. Determination of assessable value based on repacking activity.
4. Interpretation of Apex Court judgment on repacking not amounting to manufacture.
5. Consideration of agencies as related persons and their role in valuation.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants sought a change in the cause title due to a company name change supported by documentary evidence and a fresh certificate of incorporation. The tribunal allowed the change, and the appellant was renamed as "M/s. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Ecof Detergents Pvt. Ltd. before that M/s. Alpha Detergents Pvt. Ltd)."

2. The appeal stemmed from allegations of under-valuation as the appellant sold goods to agencies for repacking and marketing. The authorities contended that the agencies were marketing agents, and the assessable value should include expenses like advertisement charges. The Commissioner (A) confirmed these findings, which were challenged in the appeal.

3. The appellant argued that repacking was not a manufacturing process during the relevant period, citing a Supreme Court judgment. They maintained that the sale was on a principal-to-principal basis, with no undervaluation or benefit to the appellants. The appellant contended that the expenses incurred by the purchasers should not be added to the appellant's assessable value.

4. The Department considered the agencies as an arm of the appellants, but clarified they were not related persons. The tribunal observed that the price at which the appellants sold the goods should be the primary consideration, and the expenses incurred by the agencies for repacking and marketing should not be added to the assessable value.

5. The tribunal concluded that the agencies were not related persons and their activities were not attributable to the appellants. The sale was deemed to be on a principal-to-principal basis, and the agencies' sale value should not be adopted for deduction. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding it legally incorrect, and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.