- (1.) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II, the appellant in these appeals, aggrieved against the orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") upholding the orders passed by the authorities below, has filed the present appeals. The assessee, namely, M/s Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai (for short "the assessee") is the respondent in these appeals.
(2.) According to the appellant, the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of moulded luggage falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 4201.00. The assessee floated a 100 per cent subsidiary company of its own under the name and style of M/s Aristocrat Marketing Ltd. (for short "AML") and started routing the bulk of their sale to its dealers through the subsidiary company i.e. AML, thereby reducing the assessable value of its products w.e.f. 1.6.1987. Investigations revealed that the assessee had floated AML and shifted some of the advertising expenses which is to be included in the assessable value to AML with a deliberate intention of reducing the assessable value and thereby evading excise duty.
(3.) The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II (for short "the Collector") issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 29.6.1990 to show cause as to why (i) the prices (after the permissible deductions) at which the goods were sold by AML to their dealers should not be taken as the assessable value for the purpose of charging Central excise duty; (ii) the differential duty should not be recovered from the assessee under sec. 11-A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2); (iii) penalty should not be imposed upon the assessee under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and (iv) the plant, building, land, machinery, etc. should not be confiscated under the provisions of Rule 173-Q.;