9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. (India) Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturers of Prepared and Preserved Foods which fall under Tariff Item Nos. 1A and 1B of Central Excise Tariff. During the relevant period their pattern of sales in the course of wholesale trade through different channels was in the following order viz., (i) Distributor CMO 70%, (ii) Canteen Stores Department - 20%, and (iii) Exports 10%. They submitted price list in part IV from time to time in respect of their major sales i.e., through M/s. Weikfield Central Marketing Organisation claiming trade discount of 20% for goods sold in consumer packs and 17% for goods in bulk packs. The said pattern of sales and price lists were approved by the Department. The Superintendent, Central Excise issued a show cause-cum-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding the validity of deciding that issue the first Appellate authority grossly erred in deciding the issue that CMO is not a related person of the respondents but on facts the respondents themselves have accepted by filing the price lists in form IV and majority of the partners of CMO are the wives of directors of the respondent company, as the respondent company have arranged major sales through the partnership firm CMO and hence CMO is a related person and a favoured buyer in view of the ratio of the Bombay Tyres International case and the transaction between these two concerns cannot be treated as a sales at arm s length and Assistant Collector was justified in demanding by disallowing the discount allowed by the respondent company to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O cannot be treated as a favoured buyer as the price of the goods sold to CMO for the same price of the goods supplied to the other distributor CSD. He contended that it is not the case of Department that price charged by the related person should be taken while determining the price and it is not even the case of the Department that the respondents have charged an unduly low price from CMO. He submitted that Department erred in disallowing discount on the ground that the respondent company could not produce the invoices of CMO for getting that CMO is altogether a different concern. He pointed out that CMO had been appointed as their Distributors since 1963 prior to the introduction of levy of duty on the goods in question which was introdu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permissible and whether the demand is time-barred. We had an occasion to consider all these issues in Appeal No. E/608/81-A filed by the respondents as appellants against the order of the Collector (Appeals), wherein we have taken a view that CMO is neither a related person nor a favoured buyer and discount allowed by the respondents to CMO is just and reasonable. Accordingly the discount is to be deducted out of the assessable value on facts and circumstances by following the ratio of the decisions cited above. As the facts and issues are similar in these two appeals, we uphold the same view by treating that CMO is neither a related person nor a favoured buyer and discount claimed by the respondent is just and reasonable. As the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
