9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner No. 2 to intimate to them the price list at which the goods are sold by petitioner No. 1. In reply it was contended that the assessable values had to be one which is charged by petitioner No. 2 from petitioner No. 1 and not which is charged by petitioner No. 1 from its customers. 4. By order dated 24th December, 1977 the Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 must be deemed to be the manufacturer of the goods in question and the price at which the said petitioner sells the goods should be the normal price within the meaning of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 5. Being aggrieved an appeal was filed under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or are manufactured by the seller on behalf of the buyer. The relevant provisions of the agreements and the other material on the record show that the manufacturing programme is drawn up jointly by the buyer and the seller and not merely by the buyer, and the buyer is obliged to purchase the manufactured product from the seller only if it conforms to the buyer's standard. For this purpose the buyer is entitled to test a sample of each batch of the manufactured product and it is only on approval by him that the product is released for sale by the seller to the buyer. In other words, the buyer has the right to reject the goods if he does not approve of them. If the manufactured goods are not in accordance with the buyer's standard, they are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and the labour and manufactures the goods and under the agreements, affixes the trademarks on the goods. The goods are manufactured by the seller on its own account and the seller sells the goods with the trade-marks affixed on them to the buyer." The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and Others v. M/s. Food Specialties Ltd. -1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) = AIR 1986 S.C. 685 and M/s. Sidhosons and Another v. Union of India and Others [1986 (26) E.L.T. 881 (S.C.)] = AIR 1987 S.C. 61. 7. In the present case, the agreement which was entered into between the petitioners inter se was not examined by the Excise Authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, there is no order of assessment against the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the direction has been issued by the impugned order to the effect that the Deputy Collector will dispose of the case in the light of the observations made in the order of the Appellate Collector. While the order setting aside the decision of the Deputy Collector will dispose of the case in the light of the observations made in the order of the Appellate Collector, while the order setting aside the decision of the Deputy Collector does not call for my interference, I would, however, direct the Deputy Collector to pass a fresh order in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. No further orders are called for in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
