9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount sales at the factory gate account for around 6%, the rest being sold from its depots. The sales from the depots are made to buyer who is described as wholesaler, there being only one in each state. In the Union Territory of Chandigarh, States of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Punjab, however, there are no wholesale in such cases. In these areas the sales are made to one Exide Products Ltd., the appellant s subsidiary. It is not disputed that the sales to the subsidiary are at the same price at which they are sold to the wholesale dealers of the other states. Of the total quantity sold in wholesale (excluding, as we have done, the clearances to original equipment manufacturers and governmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related persons), who sell such goods in retail. 4. The Bombay High Court in Ralliwolf Ltd. v. Union of India - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 220 found that this proviso requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before it to be applied: There should be mutuality of interest, the price charges should not be normal price but the price lower to the normal price, and extra commercial considerations should have resulted in reduction in the normal price. Parties must satisfy the definition as contained in Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. There is no dispute before us that the Exide Products Ltd. is in fact a related person within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of buying of batteries either from the depots or appellant directly. We are however not confronted with such a situation. It is not the department s case that the sales are to be made by the appellant only to the wholesaler who is related. It is also to be noted that out of the total quantity of sales by the appellant, only 25% is made to related person. Therefore, the requirement in the proviso (iii) that the assessee must so arrange that the goods are generally sold to or through is also not satisfied. 6. The Counsel for the appellant also brings to our notice the observation of the Supreme Court made while dismissing an appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Tribunal in Plus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
