9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant manufactured construction chemicals using the brand name of ROFF . The department felt that going by the terms of the MOU, ROFFE must be regarded as a Related Person vis-a-vis. Four Show Cause Notices dated 4-5-1993, 9-9-1993, 8-3-1994, and 6-7-1994 were issued in respect of the aforesaid Price Lists and the prices covered by these Price Lists alleging such relationship between the manufacturer and the Buyer and proposing to determine the assessable value on the basis of prices charged by ROFFE to their wholesale buyers. The Annexures to the show cause notices provided a list of various construction chemicals manufactured and sold by the appellant. Appellant resisted the notices denying the charge and also alleging that som ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of products manufactured in relation to the quality, quantity, packing etc. Clause 4 required the appellant to procure the raw materials from parties approved by ROFFE. The Collector (Appeals) has also relied on the circumstances that the appellant and ROFFE had a common Managing Director, an averment not made in the show cause notices. 4. We have already indicated that the show cause notices did not allege any relationship between the two parties. But perhaps relationship was at the back of the mind of the Superintendent who issued the notices. The department did not indicate either in the show cause notices or at any subsequent stage what interest the appellant had in the business of ROFFE and what interest ROFFE had in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceed on the basis that duty had been paid on all the goods referred to in the annexures on lesser assessable value calculated on the appellant s price to ROFFE and differential duty was proposed to be demanded on the difference in value between the value established on the basis of ROFFE s price to their wholesalers and appellant price to ROFFE. The department did not have a case that the appellant had cleared any of the goods covered by the Annexures without payment of duty. In this view, we proceed on the basis that the entire differential duty demanded was referable to the alleged relationship between the appellant and ROFFE and since two contentions fail, the entire demand fails. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
