1999 (12) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia Ltd. The remaining to a few other industrial consumers like M/s. Prakash Industries, M/s. Rama Vision Ltd. and M/s. Videocon International. The issue involved in this appeal is the valuation of the glass shells sold to M/s. Samtel (I) Ltd. 2. The sale price to M/s. Samtel (I) Ltd. was less than the sale price to other industrial consumers by Rs. 6/-. The impugned order has held that the lower sale price to M/s. Samtel cannot constitute assessable value for Central Excise duty as the appellant and the buyer are related persons since according to Section 4 of Central Excise Act, the assessable value is to be the normal price at which goods are ordinarily sold where the buyer is not a related person. The finding that the buyer and s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to holding company by subsidiary company the High Court held that test of mutuality of interest and extra commercial consideration are to be satisfied even in the case of holding company. The High Court has held that to reject a price, the following should be the case :- "Secondly, the price charged should not be normal price but the price lower to the normal price, and that extra-commercial considerations have reduced the normal price." Similarly, in Dawn Apparels Ltd. v. UOI, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 401, Bombay High Court held as under :- "11. In the present case also, each of the authorities below has proceeded only upon the basis that there was a special relationship between the petitioners and Dawn Mills, in that the petitioners were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to other parties at a higher price were known to the Central Excise authorities. As no suppression of facts was involved, extended period for issue of show cause notice was not available to the department. They have also submitted that in any case charge of suppression is not tenable as the duty paid on the glass shells by the appellant was available to M/s. Samtel as Modvat credit, thereby leaving no advantage in not paying the correct duty on the glass shells. 5. From the case law cited by the appellants, it is clear that the existence of a mere relationship would not be determinative as to whether a sale price is acceptable as assessable value under Central Excise law. The sale price is to be rejected only if it is a lower pric....