Decided on December 30,1991

Centron Industrial Alliance Respondents


HARISH CHANDER,PRESIDENT - (1.) THE present appeal is a transferred matter in terms of provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. There was a review show cause notice issued under erstwhile Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, dated 7 -7 -1982 and the same is being treated as an appeal. Notice of hearing was sent to the respondents. The respondents wanted papers and the same were duly supplied by the Department as per the version of the JDR. Notice of hearing was sent to the respondents on 2 -12 -1991 and the respondents vide their letter dated 20 -12 -1991 stated that the matter be decided on the basis of their submissions made in their letter dated 24 -6 -1991. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the matter on the basis of the written submissions. Shri Satish Kumar, the learned JDR, who appeared for the Revenue relied on the review show cause notice and pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
(2.) WE have heard Shri Satish Kumar, the learned JDR and also perused the Miscellaneous application filed by the Department to keep pending the hearing of appeal in view the SLP filed by the Department in the Supreme Court. We enquired from the DR whether any stay has been granted by the Supreme Court in view of the Tribunal's decision vide Order No. 602 -60371986 -A, dated 12 -8 -1986, to this Shri Satish Kumar stated that he has got no information in this regard. However, he fairly stated that the facts of the present review application which is being treated by the Tribunal as an appeal are similar to the earlier matter disposed of by the Tribunal. The issue involved is that the respondents are manufacturers of safety razor blades of various brands falling under Tariff Item 45 of the Central Excise Tariff at the material time and the products were sold to M/s. Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta and M/s. R.C.H. Berar and Co. of Bombay. The Range Superintendent did not accept the price declared by the assessee on the ground that the assessable value should be the price at which the goods are marketed by the said parties to whom the entire goods were sold as it was the wholesale cash price under Section 4. The Range Superintendent has thus made the assessment accordingly. The Assistant Collector's orders were challenged before the Collector (Appeals) and Collector (Appeals) had accepted the appeal and being not satisfied with this, a review show cause notice was issued. We have as earlier discussed, the facts are not disputed. The facts of the present matter are similar to the earlier Order No. 602 -603/86 -A, dated 12 -8 -1986 in Appeal Nos. E. 41/75 -A and E. 2875/83 -A. Para numbers 2 and 3 which are relevant from the earlier order of the Tribunal are reproduced below : - "2. The appellants stated during the hearing that their same agreement with M/s. Union Carbide, though in the context of a different Order -in -Appeal and covering a different period, became the subject matter of writ proceedings on the question of valuation before the Bombay High Court, that the matter was decided in their favour by the single judge [1980 (6) E.L.T. 622], that the Division Bench rejected the department's appeal and finally the Supreme Court dismissed the department's Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9495 of 1980 on 25 -2 -1986 and that apart from these proceedings between the parties themselves, the Supreme Court had earlier held in two judgments [1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 - Cibatul Ltd. and 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 -Food Specialities Ltd.] that just because the goods were manufactured under a brand name and sold entirely to the brand name owner, it could not be concluded that the transaction was not at arm's length. 3. The only point which the learned representative of the department made was that the sale prince of the brand name owners was almost double their purchase price and that this fact alone showed that the price charged by the appellants from the brand name owners was a favoured price. In reply, the appellants invited attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court (single judge) wherein this point had already been agitated by the department but overruled by the High Court".
(3.) IN view of the above discussion we find no merit in the appeals. The appeal is dismissed and the miscellaneous application is also disposed of in the above terms.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.