9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement was arrived at between petitioner No.1 one hand and Bajaj Electrical Limited on the other, whereby the petitioners agreed to supply the goods manufactured by them which the purchaser desired to sell under their brand name. In pursuance of the agreement, the petitioners have sold the goods to the Bajaj Electrical Limited from time to time. 3. The Government of India had granted relief from the payment of excise duty by way of exemption to small manufacturers. The Government of India published Notification No. 176/77 on June 18, 1977 in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempting the goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation made by the petitioners claiming for exemption is not correct and the petitioners are not entitled to the advantage of the Notification. The Assistant Collector observed that the manufacture of domestic electrical appliances by the petitioners was for and on behalf of the M/s. Bajaj Electricals Limited and the value thereof exceeded Rs. 13.75 lakhs for the relevant period from April 1, 1977 and February 28, 1978. The Assistant Collector observed that the claim of the petitioners to clear the manufactured goods, upto the value of Rs. 5 lakhs under nil duty would not be entertainable and the petitioners were called upon to show cause before passing the order. 4. The petitioners sent their reply by letter dated April 22, 1978 and poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bajaj Electricals Limited is that the goods purchased by Bajaj Electricals Limited were sold with the brand name, "Bajaj". Shri Bhatt submits that the agreement between the petitioners and Bajaj Company nowhere indicates that the manufacture of goods was for and on behalf of the company. Shri Bhatt is right in his submission. The agreement nowhere indicates that the company had any control over the manufacture of goods or has given financial assistance or supplied raw materials for the purpose of manufacture. The agreement between the parties is clearly at an arms length and the mere fact that the goods sold by the petitioners are further re-sold under the brand name of the company is not sufficient to conclude that the manufacture was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
