2003 (6) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice K.K. Usha, President]. - These are appeals, at the instance of the assessee and its General Manager challenging the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, dated 29-1-2002. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Flavoured Ready Syrup (FRS) which is cleared in 18 litre canisters from the factory. They are sold to different dealers. 2. The issue for consideration in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion of the Supreme Court in Philips India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.). It is also submitted that M/s. PAPL will not come within the definition of 'related person' in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) the Supreme Court has held that on a proper inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e sale between the appellant and PAPL is not one principal to principal. 6. We find no merit in the stand taken by the Revenue. Revenue has no case that the price at which FRS is sold to M/s. PAPL is different from the sale price to the other dealers. Therefore, unless Revenue is able to show that there is additional consideration flowing to MBL from PAPL it cannot be held that the sale is not ....