2018 (7) TMI 2177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty demand of Rs. 2,92,04,218.17 against the appellant under the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act"), along with applicable interest under Section 11AB thereof. Penalty of an equivalent amount has also been imposed upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, "the said Rules"). The impugned order relates to proceedings under 22 show cause notices issued during the period July 7, 1995 to April 25, 2001 covering a total period from April 1991 to June 2000. Out of the said 22 show cause notices, the first show cause notice dated July 7, 1995 was issued invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that during the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions of the Apex Court in support of his contention: (i) Kulwant Electrical Industries Vs. Union of India, 1999 (109) ELT 23 (SC) (ii) Sidhosons Vs. Union of India, 1986 (26) ELT 881 (SC) (iii) Commissioner of C.Ex. Vs. Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., 2015 (318) ELT 545 (SC). 4. On behalf of the respondent the findings of the Commissioner has been reiterated. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that this issue is fully covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above on behalf of the appellant. The Commissioner's reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sidhosons case (supra) in support of the conclusion that valuation of the subject goods had to be on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the buyers and to which the brand name label 'Bajaj' is applied are sold by the manufacturers to the buyers at the stipulated price and to none-else. They are not at all sold in the open market by the manufacturers. The right to sell these goods with the brand name is solely and exclusively that of the buyers having regard to the fact that they alone are the owners of the brand name 'Bajaj'. The price fetched by the goods manufactured by the petitioner company is the price of the electrical goods 'sans' the brand name. And that should be the market value for the purposes of assessing the excise duty payable by the petitioner company which manufactures the excisable goods. The enhancement in the value of the goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le a manufacturer who manufactures and sells his goods under his own brand name or under a brand name which he has acquired a right to use. In such a case, the sale price fetched by sales effected by him under such brand name in wholesale will be the basis for computation of excise duty payable by him. So also nothing said herein will come to the rescue of a brand name owner who himself is the manufacturer of goods or to sales effected in favour of 'related' persons as defined by the Act." The highlighted part conclusively supports the contention of the appellant. The part of the judgment relied upon by the Commissioner covers only cases where, as clarified, a manufacturer who manufactures and sells his goods under his own brand ....