9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of UPS System. They were either sold directly or through M/s. Vistar Electronics (P) Ltd. The dispute related to inclusion of the cost of battery in the assessable value of the UPS System. The demand raised in the show cause notice was set aside by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Original. Arguing the case today learned Departmental Repres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer. The Counsel for the respondents also states that the allegation that M/s. Vistar Electronics (P) Ltd. was related to M/s. D.B. Electronics was not sustainable at all. He contends that this is clear from the very fact that M/s. D.B. Electronics was a partnership between Mr. Bhide and Mr. Tulpule. While M/s. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was a Pvt. Ltd. Co. with equal share holding by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... star Electronics Pvt. Ltd. was related to M/s. D.B. Electronics is obviously not sustainable in view of the share holding pattern itself. Further, it was being managed by Mr. H.V. Joshi and the 2 partners of D.B. Electronics were also removed from its Board of Directors in March, 1991. Therefore, the allegation of relationship between two companies is not sustainable and the demand of duty has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty demand in respect of clearances of UPS System along with battery from M/s. D.B. Electronics after including the value of batteries also in the value of UPS System. The demand so computed shall be intimated to M/s. D.B. Electronics and they shall make payment of the same within six weeks of the receipt of such revised duty demand. Appeal is disposed of in these terms. It is also directed that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
