9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es otherwise. There is absolutely no restriction as to whom the goods are being sold further. The goods are sold under the invoices of M/s. Banami at MRP fixed by the appellant - there is nothing on record to conclude that M/s. Banami was acting as a consignment Agent of the appellant. The transaction between appellant and M/s. Banami is on Principal to Principal basis and hence, Excise Duty is to be paid only in terms of Section 4 (1a) of the Act - there is no justification for resorting to valuation in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/99/2009 - ORDER NO. FO/75217/2019 - Dated:- 15-1-2019 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessable value was worked out on the above basis and differential duty demanded by the issue of Show Cause Notice dated 07/05/2008. The proceedings were concluded with the issue of the impugned order in which the adjudicating authority upheld the demand in the Show Cause Notice along with interest and penalty equal to such duty demand. This order is under challenge in the present proceedings. 2. The appellant is represented by Shri A. K. Das, Ld. Advocate and the Revenue by Shri A. Roy, Ld. AR. 3. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the demand is without any basis. He took us through various clauses of the agreement between the appellant and M/s. Banami Enterprises. He submitted that the agreement has been entered st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by anybody else. (ii) He submitted that M/s Benami Enterprises was found acting as consignment agent and accordingly, the value is required to be adopted, in terms of Rule 7 ibid at the price at which such consignment agent has sold the goods. (iii) The Ld. DR also relying on the following case law:- (i) Snow White Industrial Corporation Vs. Collector of C. Ex. Reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 360 (S.C.) 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. 7. The agreement entered into by the appellant with M/s. Banami Enterprises is the subject matter of the dispute. More specifically, dispute is centred around clauses 10, 11, 15 30 of the said agreement. For ready reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, name boards and other materials entrusted by the Company to the Dealer from time to time. 8. The agreement evidently is entered into by two parties and appellant on the one hand and M/s. Banami Enterprises on the other hand. Various terms and conditions have been mutually agreed upon between them including the discount which should be extended to the dealer by the appellant. It is further evident that M/s. Banami has agreed to act as exclusive dealer of the appellant, in exclusion to other products. But on perusal of the agreement, it does not reveal that M/s. Banami was acting as a consignment agent of the appellant. A consignment Agent is required to receive the goods manufactured and dispatches them to customers, iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
