2005 (11) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r determining the value of the goods for the purposes of levying duty thereon. Since the assessee had cleared the goods by way of sale in favour of a related person at the same price at which it had been sold to other buyers, we are inclined to accept the view taken by the Tribunal as well as that of the Collector. Appeal dismissed.
Ashok Bhan and Arun Kumar, JJ. [Order]. - Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II, the appellant in these appeals, aggrieved against the orders of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") upholding the orders passed by the authorities below, has filed the present appeals. The assessee, namely, M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai (for short .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 173Q? 4. The respondent contested the notice. It was admitted that AML is a related person to the assessee. The notice was discharged by the Collector holding that there was no evasion of the excise duty by the assessee and that the assessee had cleared the excisable goods to AML at the factory gate at the same price at which it had been cleared to the dealers including the Canteen Stores Department (CSD). Since the assessee had sold the goods at the factory gate to AML on the same price at which it had been sold to other dealers and CSD, the AML although a related person, was not shown any favour or that the sale made to AML was not done to evade the excise duty. The Collector in his order recorded two significant findings, which are as u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t disputed by the department, that the price at which the goods are sold to different classes of buyers is the same price at which it sold the goods to AML." 6. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 7. It is not disputed that the sales made to the persons other than the related person, were of significant quantity, viz, for the period from 1st June, 1987 to March 1988 the sales to persons other than the related person was to the tune of nearly 36% and for the period from June 1988 to March 1989 the same was to the tune of nearly 43%. Thus, in our view, the price at which the goods were sold to the persons other than the related person could form the basis for determining the value of the goods for the purposes of levying duty thereon. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X