1997 (7) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct assessable value determination for electric storage batteries.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration of prices and duty evasion.
3. Relationship between the appellant and another company regarding pricing and discounts.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric storage batteries under different brand names, faced a show cause notice for allegedly misdeclaring prices and evading duty on batteries sold to another company under a franchise agreement. The notice claimed the appellant sold batteries to the other company at lower prices than declared, while charging higher prices from dealers and consumers. It was alleged that the appellant failed to disclose sales through the other company, resulting in duty evasion. The notice contended that the appellant should have filed price lists differently for batteries sold to the other company. The lower authorities upheld the demands, considering the control exerted by the appellant over the prices charged by the other company and the differential values between declared prices and recommended consumer prices. They deemed the appellant and the other company as related persons due to various factors, including the exclusive sale of batteries to the other company and higher discounts offered to them.

The appellate tribunal noted discrepancies in the lower authorities' reasoning. It highlighted that the show cause notice did not mention differential discounts but focused on the price differences between declared and recommended prices. The tribunal found that the appellant's recommendation of consumer prices did not establish a relationship with the other company. It emphasized that the higher discounts offered to the other company were unrelated to proving mutual interest. The tribunal observed that the appellant's lower discounts for their own brand batteries were justified due to their direct involvement in sales promotion and after-sales services. In contrast, sales of batteries under the other company's brand were solely handled by them, absolving the appellant of related expenses. The tribunal concluded that no mutual interest existed between the parties and overturned the lower authorities' decision, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the previous order, ruling in favor of the appellant. It rejected the notion of a relationship between the appellant and the other company based on pricing and discount practices. The tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence supporting mutual interest and clarified the distinct responsibilities of the parties regarding sales and expenses.