TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....themselves and another 50% is sold by the appellants through LNL. The sale of the Novino torches is effected by the appellants in half of the country and LNL sells Novino torches in other half of the country. The MRP for the torches is the same for the consumers throughout the country. 2. For Excise Duty purpose, the appellants have shown much lower value for their sale to LNL compared to the price at which they themselves are paying duty for transfer of the torches to their own Depots, for subsequent retail sale. The Adjudicating Commissioner has ordered assessment of sales to LNL at the same price at which the appellants themselves have cleared the impugned goods for transfer to their own depot. The appellants are in appeal before u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Act, 1944, at the material time, the price at which goods are ordinarily sold could be accepted as assessable value provided, the buyers were not related persons and the price was the sole considered for the sale. The ld. Advocate for the appellants has argued at length to say that the appellants and LNL cannot be considered as related persons. We find that the adjudicating Commissioner has in his order held that sufficient material, including the fact that in respect of the sales to LNL, no royalty was being included (which was squired to be paid by the appellants for undertaking the manufacture of the impugned "NOVINO" Torches using the Brand name of LNL), exists to come to a conclusion that price was not the sole consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned goods, through the appellants depots and through LNL, reach the market and are sold at the same retail price throughout the country. 7. As regards the contention that the demand is time barred, we find that the adjudicating Commissioner has adequately dealt with this contention and has recorded in his findings that various officers of the appellant company, in their statements, have admitted the fact that the trade mark "NOVINO" belongs to LNL was not declared and the agreements between the appellant and LNL were also not disclosed apart from the fact that non-inclusion of royalty in sales to LNL was suppressed. No price lists were also filed by the appellants though they were required to do so under Rule 173C. 8. ....