TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from time to time and according to specifications and directions given by it. Price was not fixed by the agreement but the same was to be fixed from time to time by mutual agreement. Excise duty, freight, sales-tax and other levies were to be paid by the buyer. On 3-9-1980, the petitioner-company submitted Price List No. 95/80-81 in respect of detergent cakes manufactured by it for the buyer in the proforma meant for determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Vadodara, for his approval. The value claimed for approval was Rs. 107.27 per carton of nine dozen cakes (i.e. Rs. 11.92 per dozen), exclusive of excise duty. The Assistant Collector did not approve it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delivery. 3.It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Collector did not read the agreement properly and wrongly proceeded on the basis that the agreement provided for giving of advice, assistance and technical knowledge by the buyer, to the petitioner-company. Having gone through the agreement, we find that there is no such provision in the agreement. It was also contended that the Assistant Collector proceeded on an assumption that the entire production of detergent cakes by the petitioner-company was to be sold to the buyer. Though that is not exactly what the Assistant Collector has stated in his order, he appears to have proceeded on that assumption and that becomes clear if we refer to his order wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The said clause also provided that in case of rejection, the seller, i.e. the petitioner-company had the right to remanufacture or reprocess the said product and to dispose of the same as it considered fit and proper. Clause 14 of the agreement provided that till delivery of the product was given to the buyer or to the public carriers for the purpose of taking them to the buyer, the property in the said product was to remain that of the seller. It was only on delivery that the said product was to become property of the buyer. Clause 19 specifically provided that the seller in no manner had to hold out as an agent of the buyer. In our opinion, these provisions in the agreement clearly go to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted by two decisions of the Bombay High Court in the cases of Contron Industrial Alliance Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 1980 (6) E.L.T. 622 ; Godrej Soaps Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 1985 (25) E.L.T. 482 and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Cibatul Limited, 1985 (22) E.L.T. 302. 5.As against that Mr. Ajmera, learned Counsel for the respondents, relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Pilky Footwear Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 1980 (6) E.L.T. 338. In that case the facts were entirely different. There the agreement provided not merely for giving of advice and assistance and technical know-how and supervision to the buyer but also for supplying necessary working ....