9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arisen regarding valuation of the air coolers supplied by M/s Mutual industries to the appellant. The demand was confirmed by the Commissioner and the appellant were imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He pointed out that the main noticee namely, Mutual industries, has settled the issue with Revenue under SVLDR Scheme. 2.1 Learned Counsel further pointed out that a similar controversy relating to valuation of goods purchased by the same appellant from various manufacturers with whom also the appellant had purchased goods came before the Tribunal. After considering legal position, the Tribunal held in the favour of said manufacturers. The demand and penalty imposed were set aside. He listed the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. Learned Counsel assert that the investigation in all these cases was common. The agreement of the appellant with various vendors including Mutual Industry was same as other. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice are also same. From the above facts, it is evident that the charges and the allegations are similar. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue is also similar in the circumstances. The ratio of decision of Tribunal in the case of other similar place manufacturer would be applicable to the instant case as well. 5. In the case of Ravi Kiran Plastics Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (303) ELT 144, a similarly place manufacturer, the Tribunal has examined the facts and came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the manufacturers are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Innocorp Limited (supra). We would hasten to hold that in the case of Innocorp Limited, the agreement clauses as reproduced in paragraph 2.1 of the said order are more stringent than the clauses of agreement in the case in hand, inasmuch as the Tupperware had strict quality control procedure set up, were also controlling and directing M/s. Innocorp Limited for control of the cost of the production, M/s. Innocorp Limited were also required to return the balance goods back to M/s. Tupperware immediately. We find that despite such terms and conditions, Tribunal had held in favour of assessee M/s. Innocorp as per the reasoning reproduced herein above, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
