9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by them to Dabur at their sale price to Dabur. A show cause notice dated 12-7-1994 was issued alleging "Burman Laboratories Limited exists entirely for the benefit of Dabur and does not have a separate existence. Therefore, it appears that the sale of products by Burman Laboratories to Dabur could not be treated as sales in the normal course of wholesale trade as many other considerations as mentioned above decide the sale and that the price at which Dabur sells the products of Burman to their wholesale dealers should form the price for assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Duty would appear to be payable on that assessable value" (para 9 of show cause notice). Appellant resisted the demand and submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods free of charge. (d) The noticee, shall not permit any third party to use the brand of Dabur. (e) The noticee shall not manufacture and/or market/cause to be manufactured, marketed or sold any goods. Similar to the branded goods under whatever trade mark other than the Brand of "Dabur". " (Para 29 of the order in adjudication) 3.It has been submitted before us on behalf of the appellant that the facts stated in the show cause notice, the agreement between the parties and other materials on the records of the case do not support either the contention that Dabur and appellants were related or that the appellant company was created by the promoters of Dabur to avoid tax liability. The show cause notice states that Shri G.P.S. Bhandari, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court noted that the price fetched by the goods manufactured by the petitioner company is the price of the electrical goods sans the brand name and that should be the market value for the purposes of assessing the excise duty payable by the petitioner company which manufactures the excisable goods. The enhancement in the value of the goods by reason of the application of the brand name is because of the augmentation attributable to the value of the goodwill of the brand name which does not belong to the manufacturers and which added market value does not accrue to the petitioner company or go into its coffers. It accrues to the buyers to whom the brand name belongs and to whom the fruits of the goodwill belong. Excise duty is payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le reversing the decision of this Tribunal [1991 (53) E.L.T. 595] that similar terms in the contract between the manufacturer and the buyer is no ground for treating the buyer of the goods as the manufacturer or to take the sale price of the brandname holder for the purpose of assessing the duty of central excise. Thus, this issue is no more res integra. 7.From what has been stated above, we are clear that there is no basis for holding Dabur India Ltd. to be the manufacturer in the present case or for adopting the sale price of Dabur India Ltd. as the assessable value for the purpose of assessment of the goods manufactured by the appellant herein. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the impugned order is set aside in i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
