9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this common order. 3. When the matter is called, Shri Ajwani, learned Senior Departmental Representative raises the preliminary point in respect of Appeal No. 213/77, that the plea of brand name was not raised before the Assistant Collector. He seems to make the point .that the appellants, therefore, should not be permitted to raise this plea at this stage. We find that this plea was not only raised before the Appellate Collector but the Appellate Collector had also given it due consideration and passed orders thereon. There is, therefore, no ground for raising any objection to this plea. 4. Shri J.J. Bhatt, learned Advocate for the appellants has stated that the basis stand of the appellants has always been that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the issue in those cases was as to what should be considered as manufacture for and on behalf of another person. It is submitted that the issue of brand owners is distinct and in view of the special tie up, they should be treated as related persons and assessment should be made under section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. To support this argument, it is pointed out that normally a manufacturer should have post manufacturing sales responsibilities which the appellants do not have. On the other hand, the brand owner does not have the manufacturing head-aches and liability. Therefore, manufacture for a brand owner is a special tie up in respect of which old section 4(1)(a) of Central Excises Act cannot apply, and assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Department, an attempt has been made to establish that appellants cannot rely on the decisions in the Voltas & Redihot Electricals or Cibatui cases. Since, it is pointed out that the issue of brand owner was not before the courts in those cases. We do not consider it necessary to go into this argument at any length for the reasons, that the appellants have themselves stated that they are relying on the relevant judgements only in so far as the basic issue as regards post manufacturing expenses is concerned. As understood from the angle that the valuation of goods for payment of Central Excise duty should be on the basis of prices at the point of clearance of the factory, so far as the issue of brand owner is concerned, as they have ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
