TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rders of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") upholding the orders passed by the authorities below, has filed the present appeals. The assessee, namely, M/s. Universal Luggage Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Mumbai (for short "the assessee") is the respondent in these appeals. 2. According to the appellant, the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to why (i) the prices (after the permissible deductions) at which the goods were sold by AML to their dealers should not be taken as the assessable value for the purpose of charging central excise duty; (ii) the differential duty should not be recovered from the assessee under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2); (iii) penalty should not be imposed upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o AML was not done to evade the excise duty. The Collector in his order recorded two significant findings, which are as under : (i) "On close perusal of records, I find that the assessee had filed Price Lists i.e. Proforma-I with effect from 1-6-1987 as stated in the Show Cause Notice. The assessee had cleared excisable goods to the tune of Rs. 46,63,80,823.64 during the period June 1987 to May, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rma-I. It is, thus, evident that no special consideration had been extended to M/s. AML, which is a subsidiary concern of M/s. ULM; further the sales effected to CSD, Exports, DGS & D are covered within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) as discussed herein before." 5. The aforesaid findings of the Collector have been upheld by the Tribunal by observing thus : "........ It was, and is the stand of t....