9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises Ltd. before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court in their order dated 25-9-1987 referred to the judgments given by the Supreme Court and directed the Petitioners to submit the statement of deductions, etc., in respect of price lists already filed for proper determination of the duty liability in accordance with the observations made by the Supreme Court. The assessee were permitted to file revised price lists in certain cases. The Excise authorities were directed to finalise the assessments during a particular period. The department was permitted to raise demand for differential duty and the Petitioners were directed to pay the demand so raised within 6 months from the date of Court s order. On the other hand the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of the goods. He however, observed that in the present case the buyer and the manufacturer were both the divisions of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. and could not be held to be independent entities. On this ground he held that the value of the packing material was includible and upheld the lower order. Against this order the present appeal has been filed. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Advocate arguing for the Appellants claimed that the manufacturer of glass vials and buyer/supplier of packing material were independent entities inasmuch as they held different L-4 licenses. He further urged that the goods were sold by M/s. Packart to M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals. Since the relationship was of that of a buyer and seller he sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the buyer and supplier of the packing material are not independent entities. Then the packing material although supplied by the buyer may be includible in the assessable value. Shri Willingdon at this stage seeks to make a distinction between separate corporate entities and separate entities in terms of the Central Excise law. He has submitted that as long as the two units are holding different L-4 licenses they should be deemed to be not only separate assessees but also separate entities for interpretation of Section 4. 7. We find that no answers are forthcoming from the record on this aspect. Before the Assistant Collector certain submissions were made without showing any documentary evidence as to the relationship or lack thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
