2002 (2) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods sold to Exide Product Ltd. should be assessed under proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. In accordance with the proviso, goods have been re-assessed treating the sale price of Exide Product Ltd. as the assessable value (instead of the sale price of the manufacturer to Exide product Ltd.) and a differential duty demand of about Rs. 6.5 crores made. Penalty of an equal amount has also been imposed in the impugned order. 3. It is the submission of the appellants that storage batteries produced by them should be assessed only at the wholesale price at which they sell the goods since that price constitutes the normal price of the goods. It is also pointed out that their sale price is the same for their subsidiary a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... operation. Ld. Counsel has also referred to other decisions on the issues i.e. CCE v. Enfield India Ltd. - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 654, Indo-National Ltd. v. Union of India Others - 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J334); CCE v. Vikrama Engineering Co. - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 143. 5. It is also the submission of the appellants that even in a case where proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) is attracted, a manufacturer s sale price to the related person can be rejected only if it is found that that price is a favoured price and not a fully commercial price. In support of this submission the ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied on the following decisions : (a) Ralliwolf Ltd. v. UOI - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 220 (Bom.). (b) Samtel Electron Devices Ltd. Ors .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dealers (being related persons), who sell such goods in retail. In the present case, a small portion of the goods is sold at the factory gate to Government buyers etc. Remaining goods are sold from the depots. The depot price and ex-factory price are the same. A considerable portion of the sales ranging from 23% in 1997-98 to about 50% in 1995-96 was to un-related wholesale dealers. Revenue has no grievance that the sale price to un-related wholesale dealers does not constitute normal value of the goods. Sales to the subsidiary are at the same price as to wholesale dealers. In such a situation, we are not able to agree with the finding in the impugned order that the goods have not been generally sold to wholesale dealers and that provis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X