It is also number the case of the department that there was any relationship between is M s. MGS and M s. CP other than that of the seller and buyer.
This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act directed against the order of Customs, Central Excise and Gold Control Tribunal hereinafter referred to as CEGAT dated 30th September, 1993 in Final Order No.
The facts are as under The appellant, M s. M.G. Shahani Company Delhi Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of shampoos falling under sub heading No.
On March 19, 1990, the Collector afforded the appellant a personal hearing.
On April 15, 1985, the appellant companypany submitted price lists to the Excise Department valuing the said goods manufactured by it, on the basis of the value at the appellant companypanys factory gate.
it has also number been alleged that the brand names belonged to M s. MGS or that M s. CP were obliged to incur any expenditure on advertisement and publicity at the instance of M s. MGS.
The appellant pointed out that the said advertisement and publicity expenses and testing expenses incurred by Colgate Palmolive companyld number possibly be included in the assessable value of the appellants products.
On October 28, 1989, reply was sent by appellant to the said show cause numberice dated 3.7.1989.
The Collector rendered the following finding The department has number disputed the fact that M s. MGS manufacture the goods in their own factory and have all the infrastructure for the said manufacturing activity.
Further, Colgate Palmolive also incurred certain testing expenses, in order to enable it to decide whether to accept or to reject the goods manufactured by the appellant.
In fine, the proceedings initiated by show cause numberice dated 3rd July, 1989 were dropped.
In this view, he did number companysider it necessary to render a finding regarding the allegation of suppression of facts.
Colgate Palmolive in order to promote its own trade names and marks, incurred advertisement and publicity expenses in respect of the said branded products.
Aggrieved by this, the matter was taken up in appeal to CEGAT.
On July 3, 1989, show cause cum demand numberice was issued by the Collector proposing to raise a demand for excise duty on the appellant in respect of the period 1.4.1985 to 31.12.1988 on the ground that the said advertisement and publicity expenses and testing expenses were includible in the assessable value of the appellants products.
3305 09 of CET, 1985.
These two, the appellant companypany and Colgate Palmolive are independent companypanies.
After making detailed enquiries, the Excise Authorities duly approved the said price lists.
The shampoos were sold by the appellant exclusively to the owner of the brand name of M s. Colgate Palmolive.
The manufacture is under the brand names Halo and Palmolive.
E/2407/91 A. In and by the said order the Tribunal allowed the review appeal filed by the Excise Department and set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 30th May, 1990 and remitted the matter for a fresh decision.
