- (1.)The assessee is in appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, No. 38/94-A, dated January 31, 1994.
(2.)The assessee is the manufacturer of tape recorders in the brand name of Philips. Moulds and some other parts of the tape recorders were got prepared by Pieco (Philips) at its costs from third parties and supplied free of costs to the assessee. The assessee declared the price of tape recorders which was not accepted as correct assessable value of goods by the Excise authorities as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the price declared by the assessee was not full commercial value because the moulds etc. which were got produced by Pieco and were supplied free to the assessee resulted in an element of consideration passing from Pieco to the assessee. The Tribunal noticed that the assessee was entitled to certain deductions which were not allowed to it, and, for that purpose, it remanded the case to the adjudicating authority. Having so done, the Tribunal fixed the price of the goods at the rate at which Pieco (Philips) sold it to its dealers. Aggrieved by these two findings of the Tribunal, the assessee has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.)Mr. Vikram Nankani, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the rejection of the price declared by the appellant is illegal and unsustainable. We are afraid we cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the simple reason that it is not disputed that for the development of moulds, Pieco played a dominant role. The assessee did not invest for the development of the moulds. The cost was incurred by Pieco. The assessee got them free from Pieco. These facts do support the findings of the Tribunal that the transaction does not represent full commercial value.