2007 (8) TMI 555 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeals filed by Revenue against dropping of demand, interpretation of transaction value u/s 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944, relationship between parties, control over manufacturing activities, price reduction post 1-7-2000.

Interpretation of Transaction Value u/s 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The case involved four appeals by Revenue against dropping of demand by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding transaction value u/s 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The first respondent, a loan licensee, and the second respondent, an independent manufacturer, were involved in manufacturing medicines for a brand name owner. The issue arose when the prices were reduced post 1-7-2000, leading to show cause notices. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demands, emphasizing that the relationship between the parties was principal to principal, and there was no evidence of extra commercial consideration. The Revenue contended that the relationship was that of master and servant, with the brand name owner exercising close control over manufacturing activities.

Control Over Manufacturing Activities:
The Revenue argued that the brand name owner had significant control over manufacturing activities, indicating a master-servant relationship rather than principal to principal. They highlighted that the brand name owner supplied technical know-how, controlled raw material procurement, and determined waste management. The Revenue questioned the price reduction post 1-7-2000, alleging lack of explanation from the manufacturers. The respondents, however, maintained that they operated as independent manufacturers, adhering to the brand owner's specifications without any extra commercial considerations.

Price Reduction Post 1-7-2000:
The respondents clarified that the price reduction post 1-7-2000 was due to a previous misunderstanding regarding duty payment based on depot prices. They argued that the duty was paid at the price set by the brand owner for selling the medicines, which was not legally required. They emphasized that the manufacturing was done as per specifications without involving technical know-how. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on previous decisions to support the respondents' position, emphasizing compliance with brand owner specifications and lack of evidence of extra commercial considerations.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not sold from the brand owner's depots but were part of a manufacturing process under brand owner specifications. They found no evidence of extra commercial considerations or flow back of money, supporting the decision that the prices set by the manufacturers were valid. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 14-8-2007.