9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utes arose for the period before 1-10-1975 when the Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was substituted by a new Section. It needs to be noted that the old Section 4 did not have any definition of the kind that the new Section has defining related persons. 2. Not very much arguments were advanced by the two learned Counsel on these matters and even their written submissions submitted after the conclusion of the hearing on 13-11-1987 contained nothing about the disputes that arose from the three orders of the Assistant Collector dealt by the Appellate Collector in his Order Nos. 550-552/Cal./1979. There is only a revision petition filed by M/s. H.M.M. dated 6-6-1980 in which they attack the Appellate Collector s order as be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HMM. The goods, Horlicks, were sold to GAC who then distributed it on wholesale sale to wholesale dealers. At the hearing before the Appellate Collector on 2-3-1979 they accepted that GAC was their selling agent who maintained distribution stockist. Their representative at the hearing even agreed to an assessable value fixed on the price at which GAC sold the goods to wholesale dealers if abatement was allowed for post manufacturing expenses. 5. M/s. GAC having been accepted as a related person there was clearly not a free market when the goods are sold by M/s HMM to GAC. Their request for abatement of freight insurance etc. are, therefore, not easy to accede to since it is a fair assumption on the part of the Assistant Collector and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lements of expenses incurred by the bulk goods in their way from Punjab to Calcutta. 7. In the dispute adjudicated by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 2-12-1975, the assessees first claimed an abatement of Rs. 9.82 on account of octroi, insurance, advertising expenses etc. In the appeal before the Appellate Collector they asked for a reduced deduction of Rs. 7.78.I believe this is enough to illustrate how the appellants shift their ground and have been putting forward one demand after another to bring down the assessable value. But there has been no detailed calculation and it is impossible to fix with certainty how the deductions demanded were arrived at. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Assistant Collector and the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
