1997 (6) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter order on six refund claim. 2. The appellant engaged in the manufacture of textile bearings falling under erstwhile T.I. 49 and parts thereof falling under erstwhile T.I. 68 was filing price lists under protest. Appellant, a partnership concern, was selling the entire production to another partnership concern. The price lists filed under protest declared the price charged by the sole buyer to their customer and these were approved by the Assistant Collector. Appellant had filed six separate refund claims in respect of the duty paid during the period from April, 1979 to February, 1984 claiming refund of part of the duty paid on the allegation that duty was payable only on the price at which goods were sold by the manufacturer to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urposes sole buyer was functioning as sales department of the manufacturer and the difference in the sale price was to meet selling expenses. The sole buyer was not doing any work for any other manufacturer. Thus, it was held that there was mutuality of interest between the two concerns. It was also held that the manufacturer passed on the function of publicity and sales promotion to the sole buyer and in return enabled the sole buyer to earn 17.5% in the form of discount to meet the expenses. From these circumstances, the appellate authority concluded that the dealings were not at arm's length and the price was not the sole consideration and the sole buyer was related person under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the appellate auth....