TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and carbonation by retailers through dispensing machines. The appellants sell the syrup to their marketing subsidiary M/s. Pepsi Cola India Marketing Company and the marketing subsidiary sells to retailers. Part (2-3%) of the syrup produced is also sold ex-factory to two independent distributers M/s. Sheena Agencies, Kalyan (West) and Thirst Quenchers Karjat. 2.The issue raised in this appeal is the valuation of the syrup to Central Excise duty. The dispute turns on two elements. The Central Excise authorities have held that the assessable value should be fixed at the sale price of the marketing subsidiary of the manufacturing company, that too without allowing the deduction of discounts allowed by the marketing subsidiary to their buye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue authorities have not disputed the sale prices to two distributors as in any way being non-commercial prices. Therefore, these prices would form the assessable value for the goods sold to the related party also. 5.It has also been submitted that, in any event, discounts extended by the appellant's subsidiary to the buyers should have been deducted while assessing the goods to Central Excise duty. It is the appellant's submission that, for discount to become eligible for deduction, there was no requirement that the discounts be uniform. The only requirement is that the discount be known at the time of sale of the goods. During the hearing of the case learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the discounts were offered in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods were required to be assessed at the price at which they were sold to unrelated buyers. 7.With regard to the inclusion of lease charged for the dispensing machine in the assessable value of the syrup, it is the appellant's contention that leasing of dispensing machine by the subsidiary company is an entirely different transaction from the appellant-assessee's transaction in the manufacture and sale of syrup. It is their submission that consideration received for such a separate activity cannot have any relevance in the valuation of the syrup. Appellants have relied, in this connection on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. [1988 (36) E.L.T. 730 (S.C.)]. 8. We have perused the records and have he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the provisions themselves. Proviso 3 to Section 4(1)(a) (prior to amendment) read as under :- "(iii) Where the assessee so arranges that the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related person shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers to dealers (being related persons), who sell such goods in retail;" The new Valuation Rule 9 reads as under :- "Rule 9. When the assessee so arranges that the excisable go....