TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vocate, submitted that the appellants manufactured Colour Television (for short CTVs) Audio and Video products out of their own raw materials and they sold their products entirely to M/s. Baron International Ltd. (for short BIL) after affixing with brand name AKAI. Show cause notice dated 16-10-1995 was issued to them demanding duty and imposing penalty on the ground that there was mutuality of interest between the appellants and BIL and the price for the purpose of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should be the price at which M/s. BIL were selling the impugned products; that the Deputy Commissioner under Order-in-Original dated 2-7-1999 vacated the SCN holding that there was no relationship between the appellants and M/s. BIL. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The learned Advocate also submitted that there is no mutuality of interest between M/s. BIL and the appellants; that the SCN merely alleged the mutuality of interest without any evidence whatsoever; that neither there was any averment in the SCN nor any evidence has been brought on record to show that either BIL has interest in the business of the appellants or the appellant has interest in the business of M/s. BIL; that neither of them is having any share holding in the business of others; that merely because M/s. BIL purchased the entire goods manufactured by the appellants, they cannot be held to be related persons at all; that the price at which goods are sold to the brand owner buyer is the basis and not the price at which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the purpose of levying Central Excise duty; that accordingly it cannot be claimed by the appellants that the review order was beyond the scope of the proceedings. He also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had given his findings to the effect that there is no evidence to establish that the appellants company was a dummy unit of M/s. BIL; that, therefore, the ground of appeal in the Review Order to the effect that M/s. BIL are real manufacturer, arises out of proceedings only. On merit he submitted that there was a mutuality of interest between M/s. BIL and the appellants as certain raw materials such as PCB, and remote control were to be supplied by M/s. BIL who had also the right to post their own quality control officers. Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uality of interest as understood within the meaning given in Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority, after referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal on the aspect of the mutuality of interest, came to the conclusion that mutuality of interest in the business of each other must be in the nature of financial or manageable interest and such interest does not exist in the present matter. We also agree with the learned Advocate that these findings of holding non-existence of mutuality of interest between the appellants and M/s. BIL were not challenged in the Review Order filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly we are of the opinion that the Review Order was passed by th....