9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent on change of name issued by the Registrar of Companies. In view of this evidence, the prayer for change of the appellant s name is allowed. The appellant shall be known as M/s. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Ecof Detergents Pvt. Ltd. before that M/s. Alpha Detergents Pvt. Ltd.). 2. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 142/02 CE dated 14-3-2002 in terms of this order. The Commissioner (A) has confirmed demands as per the Order-in-Original No. 45/98 dated 27-3-1998 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-IV Division. The allegation against the appellant is that they had removed Sabeena brand scouring powder in bulk packs to M/s. Scientific Compounds Processes Pvt. Ltd. (SCPPL) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able from the assessable value adopted by M/s.ADPL. This also leads to conclusion that Sabeena scouring powder cannot be traded in bulk form which means that there exists no wholesale trade/market for Sabeena scouring powder in bulk form. This apart, M/s. SCPPL/M/s. Solar Agencies are incurring expenditure towards advertisement charges and other incidental expenses in connection with marketing of said product. By resorting to market the product through M/s. SCPPL/M/s. Solar Agencies, the above expenses have escaped from the cash price charged at M/s. ADPL level. It appears that the above arrangement has been made only to reduce the normal price at price at M/s. ADPL. Transfer of goods from M/s. ADPL to M/s. SCPPL and M/s. Solar Agencies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R defended the order and pointed out that the goods were although sold to two of the said persons, they were to be treated as arm of the appellants. However, on a specific query from the bench, as to whether the department has alleged these two agencies as related persons, the learned SDR fairly submitted that they were not related persons. 5. On a careful consideration, we notice that the price adopted by the appellants for sale of the bulk detergent at their factory gate is required to be taken. The expenses incurred by the purchasers for repacking and marketing the same is not required to be added to the assessable value of the appellant, as the said agencies were not the extended arm of the appellant. There was no such allegation of u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
