- (1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE Tribunal, in the instant case, in para 3 of its order rightly framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. That the price for the sale of the ice cream to M/s Hindustan Lever Limited is not the sole consideration. 2. That the sale is not on a principal-to-principal basis and cannot be considered at arm's length between the assessee and M/s Hindustan Lever Limited who are favoured buyers and related persons under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal without even adverting to the basic facts and without making any independent analysis of the agreement between the parties but only relying on the earlier decision in Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. CCE allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal has copiously referred to the findings in the said judgment but without saying anything as to how those findings are applicable to the facts at hand the Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the observation that the findings in the earlier case are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. It is needless to restate that the question whether they are related persons within the meaning of S. 4(4)(c) of the Act is to be considered with reference to the facts in each case. The Tribunal failed to advert even to the basic facts and disposed of the appeals in a summary manner interfering with the order passed by the authority. We find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the Tribunal.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.;