9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.L. Bhat, President]. Respondent, a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacture of glass and glassware filed price list No. 11/81 effective from 10-8-1981 in respect of glass chimney falling under TI-23A (3) declaring prices as Rs. 3.75 per dozen USCO (Bata type) Chimney and Rs. 3.50 per dozen 250 Chimney. It appears that the entire production of the respondent was being sold to M/s. Kala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tmak was completing the manufacturing process and alleging that the goods produced by the respondent were fully manufactured products and therefore, dutiable and denying the relationship alleged between the two persons. The Assistant Collector rejected these contentions and confirmed the proposal in the show cause notice on the grounds referred to in the notice. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f grinding and embossing work done by M/s. Kalatmak. If this stand is correct, it would mean that respondent was not manufacturing any exciseable products and therefore, would not have liability to pay central excise duty at all. Such is not the case of the department. 3. There is no doubt that there was a substantial difference in the prices charged by respondent from M/s. Kalatmak. There are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f other partners in the two firms and the management of the two firms were not referred to in the show cause notice or in the order passed by the Assistant Collector. Mere commonality of a few partners would not be sufficient to show that the two concerns have mutual interest in the business of each other. 5. For the reasons indicated above, we hold that the Collector (Appeals) was justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
