1986 (8) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the additional charge of Rs. 190 per television set imposed by ECIL should be included in the assessable value.
2. Whether M/s. Television Factory and ECIL are related persons affecting the assessable value determination.
3. Whether the price declared by M/s. Television Factory should be accepted or the price at which the TV receiver sets are sold to independent customers by ECIL should be considered for assessment.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of an extra charge of Rs. 190 per television set imposed by ECIL in the assessable value. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector agreed that this charge should be added to the price as it was considered part of the wholesale price without which the sets were not sold in the market. The appellant argued that this charge was not in addition to their price, as they were unrelated to ECIL, and it was not optional to customers. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision to include the charge in the assessable value based on the relationship between the parties and relevant legal provisions.

2. The question of whether M/s. Television Factory and ECIL were related persons was crucial in determining the assessable value. The department contended that they were related, citing the agreement between the parties and the declaration of prices in part IV. The Tribunal noted the close collaboration between the two entities, including transfer of technology and know-how, which indicated a significant relationship. The Tribunal relied on section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, deeming the price at which goods are sold by related persons as the assessable price.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement between M/s. Television Factory and ECIL to determine the acceptable price for assessment. The agreement restricted the factory from selling television sets to others without ECIL's permission and imposed various obligations on the factory in favor of ECIL. The Tribunal concluded that the price declared by M/s. Television Factory was not acceptable under section 4, as it was a captive price dictated by the agreement with ECIL. Therefore, the price at which the sets were sold to independent customers by ECIL was deemed the appropriate assessable value, considering the relationship between the parties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the inclusion of the extra charge imposed by ECIL in the assessable value and determining that M/s. Television Factory and ECIL were related persons affecting the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the actual market price at which the goods were sold to independent customers for assessment purposes.