9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the agreement for sale by the latter at the prices mentioned thereof subject to a maximum variation of 10%. Cipla was to undertake sales promotion activity at its discretion and was permitted to sell the products in any manner and at any rate. The agreement contained a provision for Okasa to sell the products directly to any other party or department. There were provisions for termination of the agreement at the option of either party. This agreement was substituted on 30-3-1994 by another agreement which contains essentially the same terms and conditions. Against this background, we will consider the two appeals, one by Okasa and other by the department. 2. We are concerned in appeal E/1309/96 by Okasa with the valuation of physician ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not preclude from its exercising the right to claim the correct value for the sample. 4. The departmental representative reiterates the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is that there cannot be two prices for the same commodity. 5. When the price list was filed in May 1994 for Novamox and other medicament manufactured by Okasa, it showed, not the earlier value based on the price of Okasa but the price at which Cipla sold the goods. The notice issued proposing not to accept that price and applying the earlier higher price that the manufacturer had shown. The notice alleged that the price at which Okasa sold the goods to Cipla was not the normal price. It sought to determine the price by applying the third clause of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied by Cipla. There is no provision in the agreement even for a visit for any purpose of Cipla s employees to the factory of Okasa. Clause 11 of the agreement specifically mentions Okasa may sell the goods directly to any other party or department. There is therefore not the slightest material to show that the two are related. The decisions of the Tribunal in Pawan Biscuits v. CCE will have no application (apart from the fact that this decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court). It is also not possible to agree that there is no sale of goods. Merely because there is a delivery in the depot of Cipla, we do not see why there is no sale or the sale price would not be the assessable value. 8. Appeal E/2098/00 is accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
