1997 (2) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn delivered the goods taken from the appellant to M/s. Agarcon (India) Ltd., Kanpur. M/s. Agarcon (India) Ltd. then sold the said fabrics to other wholesale dealers. 3.The Collector of Excise decided that the value, for the purpose of excise duty, of the goods should be the price which was charged by the appellant from the said four parties. The proposal to adopt the sale price of M/s. Agarcon (India) Ltd., as being the wholesale price for the purpose of excise duty, was dropped by the Collector by his order dated 27-2-1986. 4.Thereafter the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a show cause notice as, in its opinion, the decision of the Collector was not correct. Thereupon an order was passed on 14-1-1987. In the said order, it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the second preliminary objection but came to the conclusion that for the view which it was taking it was not necessary to decide the same. The Tribunal after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that M/s. Agarcon was not a related person of the appellant and therefore, the selling price of M/s. Agarcon could not be regarded as the wholesale price of the appellant herein. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the four firms which came in between the appellant and M/s. Agarcon (India) Ltd. were mere shadows. It took note of the fact that these four firms had virtually no funds of their own, while they were having turnover of crores of rupees. These firms also had no godowns or st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it in the following words : "The respondents contended that the point - that the four firms were mere shadows - did not arise from the Collector's order nor was this point specified in the Board's reference order. We do not agree with the respondents. There is a very extensive discussion on this point in both the orders. Whereas the Collector has concuded that the dealings between the respondents and the four firms were as from principal to principal, the Board was of the tentative view that the four firms were not real buyers and sellers. We hold that the point did arise out of the lower orders." 9.We are in agreement with the aforesaid observations. The order dated 14-1-1987 of the Board shows that all the facts relating to these f....