1976 (2) TMI 181 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of distribution agreement and its impact on excise duty assessment.
2. Determination of assessable value based on brand name association in manufacturing.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the nature of the agreement between the appellant and M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd., distributors of the appellant's products under the brand name 'KILBURN'. The appellant contended that M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd. were their sole selling agents under an independent agreement, similar to precedents cited from the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court judgments. The appellant argued that the distribution agreement did not entail manufacturing under M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd.'s orders, but rather a mutual understanding to market the products exclusively. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing the independent nature of the agreement and the retention of identities as manufacturer and distributor by both parties.

2. The Assistant Collector had rejected the appellant's refund claims, citing that the goods were manufactured under the brand name 'KILBURN' of M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd., suggesting a lack of actual sale due to brand association. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that there was no evidence to support the claim that the appellants were manufacturing under M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd.'s orders. The Tribunal highlighted the existence of an independent agreement where both parties retained their roles, akin to the judgment in the case of M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. The Tribunal held that the sale to M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd. was on a wholesale basis, and the price at which goods were sold to them should be accepted as the assessable value, overturning the Assistant Collector's decision and granting the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the independent nature of the distribution agreement and the wholesale basis of the sale to M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd. The judgment set aside the Assistant Collector's order, accepted the appeal, and allowed consequential relief based on the assessment of the goods' value.