9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssees from their depot during the period when they had the right to use the brand name - Held that:- the choice of the assessees regarding unused quantity of insecticides bearing the brand name was either to destroy the goods or to sell them to the buyer and therefore the assessees sold at a lower rate - It is not the case of the department that the lower price at which the goods were sold to inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to destroyer device w.e.f. 24.5.95 when the brand name was assigned to M/s.Transelektra Domestic Products Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TDPL), was less than the price adopted by the assessees from their depot during the period when they had the right to use the brand name. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the buyer of the goods is a wholesale dealer in addition to being a manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to use the brand name, is the nearest ascertainable assessable value, is not justified. In the light of the above discussion, we accept the contention of the assessees that the price adopted by them was the normal price, and therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 5.7.2011) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
