1998 (10) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,58,773/- confirmed in the inpugned order. 2 Shri Pragyan Sharma learned Counsel, submitted that besides the advertisements done by the appellants, the dealers have also to advertise the product in their local areas which are not covered by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540] and Mahindra Mahindra v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [1998 (103) E.L.T. 606 (Tribunal) = 1998 (25) R.L.T. 547] are not applicable as the transactions were not on principal to principal basis and not at arms length. The learned Advocate submitted that the decision in the case of Bombay Tyres [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)] and MRF Ltd. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred for advertisement by the dealer was an optional requirement or it was compulsory. 4 We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The question whether the expenses incurred by the dealers on advertisement was optional or mandatory or whether it creates any nexus between the appellants and the dealer are to be examined at the time of hearing of the main appeal. We observe that in vie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X