TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (1) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal No. Material period Differential duty demand Rs. Penalty imposed E/192/02 9/95 to 2/99 43,78,379/- 1,68,354/- Rs. 45,46,733/- E/1062/04 3/99 to 7/99 1,83,524/- 13,743/- Rs. 20,000/- 2. Appeal No. E/192/02 is taken up for disposal as the order impugned No. E/1062/04 affirmed an order in original which had followed the in the order of the Commissioner impugned in the Appeal No. 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Interbright Appliance Private Limited (IAPL) manufactured electronic water purifiers (EWP) of different capacities and sold such EWP of 10 litres per minute (EWP 10) entirely to M/s. Eureka Forbes Ltd.(EFL) under an agreement during the period of dispute. EFL in turn sold them ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the SSI exemption was held to be not admissible for the reason that the assessee had used brand name belonging to another person. It had used the brand name "Aquapure". The Commissioner inferred that the appellants had used also brandnames such as "Aquaguard" and "Ultrapure" belonging to others. EFL and IAPL had relationship as between principal and agent. In confirming the demand finding the above relationship the Commissioner followed the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Pawan Biscuits Company (P) Ltd. v. CCE [1991] (53) E.L.T 595 (Tri.)]. M/s. Pawan Biscuits Company had delivered the goods at the depots of M/s. Britannia Industries Limited (BIL) on the instructions of BIL. Similarly IAPL had supplied EWP10 to the depots of EFL. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se was called none appeared representing the appellants. The Counsel for the appellants has submitted a letter requesting to decide the appeals on merits. The Managing Director of the company had expired and the Counsel did not receive any instruction from the appellants. 6. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings contained in the impugned orders. 7. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. We find that the impugned demands were raised following enhancement of assessable value adopted for payment of duty on clearances of EWP-10 to EFL and denial of the SSI benefit extended under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 1-3-93 and its successor notifications. As regards the revision of assessable value the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sold by IAPL. As rightly pointed out by the appellants the decision of the Tribunal in Pawan Biscuits case (supra) relied upon by the Commissioner was overruled by the Apex Court in Pawan Biscuits P. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [2000 (120) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.)]. In the facts of the case the Commissioner had wrongly placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the Pawan Biscuits case. 7.1 We find that the Commissioner has held IAPL and EFL as related and that the sale price of EFL who bought goods manufactured by IAPL should be the basis of assessable value. It is settled law that a buyer would not become a related person merely because all the goods are sold to a particular person unless the price charged to him is based or extra commercial c....