9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Enterprises. Facts relevant to the dispute are that the appellants, M/s. Janardhan Plywood Industries Ltd. is a small scale industry manufacturing flush doors, block boards and commercial plywood. They sell their products to various dealers including M/s. Kwality Agencies and M/s. Prakash Enterprises. Goods received by M/s. Prakash Enterprises get sold to D.G.S. D. at rate contracts. Similarly, part of the goods received by M/s. Kwality Agencies also get sold to Govt. departments. The manufacturer was paying duty on the goods so sold to D.G.S. D. and Govt. departments at the prices at which they sell the goods to these two dealers. The impugned order has held that duty should have been paid at the prices at which the D.G.S. D. and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er agreement dated 27-3-1995. According to this agreement, the relationship between the manufacturer and M/s. Prakash Enterprises was that of principal to principal. The dealer purchased the goods and paid for the same to the manufacturer. The further sale and amount realised on it from the DGS D was no concern of the manufacturer. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the duty demand of Rs. 12,59,669.00 in regard to sale to M/s. Prakash Enterprises was not tenable at all. 3. With regard to sale to M/s. Kwality Agencies, who supplied the goods to U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, it was submitted that the transaction with M/s. Kwality Agencies was also on principal to principal basis. M/s. Kwality Agencies purchased the goods from s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to the notice of the DGS D. Therefore, DGS D would have proceeded on the basis of the earlier agreement. In that view of the matter, M/s. Janardhan Plywood Industries Ltd. remained the supplier to the DGS D. With regard to the demand on the goods transacted through M/s. Kwality Agencies, learned D.R. submitted that the agreement itself made it clear that the appellant manufacturer was the supplier. Therefore, M/s. Kwality Agencies could only be treated as their agent. 5. We have perused the records and have considered the rival submissions. We find that the agreement dated 27-3-1995 was clearly in supersession of the previous agreement of 1994. The DGS D contract was awarded to M/s. Prakash Enterprises only after the later agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the appellant manufacturer was in any way gaining from the further transfer of the goods to the Parishad. We find that the transactions have not been examined from this aspect in the impugned order. In any case, as the price paid by Parishad included many elements other than the ex-factory value of the goods, it was required that suitable deductions are allowed from the purchase price of Parishad while fixing the assessable value. Duty paid by the appellant manufacturer could be a part of the price paid by the Parishad. We, therefore, feel that this part of the demand is required to be reconsidered after taking into account all the relevant factors and materials. This part of the demand is, therefore, remanded for fresh consideration an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
