9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : Lajja Ram, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal, dated 13-4-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay who had held that as the prices charged by the respondent M/s. Allied Textile Leather Inds., Ahmedabad were fully commercial, they were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay. 2. The Revenue had come in appeal against this order on the ground that the goods were sold to one customer M/s Bhatt Bros. under an agreement which stipulated that the said Bhatt Bros. will not charge more than 12% of the profit from the customers. The Revenue had contended that as the goods were being sold in the open market at prices higher by 12% than the value approved the benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the duty determinable on the basis of the invoice to the extent the Section 4 value is higher than the invoice value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Texmaco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta as reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 501 (SC) had held that the Section 4 value could be higher than the invoice value and in case the invoice value is the genuine value actually charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that no grounds have been adduced by the Revenue to controvert this situation. 7. The stipulation in the agreement that the customer will not charge more than 12% of the profit and will not make the manufacturer ineligible to the exemption under Notification No. 120/75-C.E. unless it could be established by cogent reasons that the relationship was not commercial. Thus, to our view this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
