Aggrieved thereby, the respondent appealed to the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
M s. Frito Lay India.
By a companymunication dated 15th December, 1997 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Jalandhar, the respondent stated that it had been paying excise duty on its manufactured excisable goods after taking into account inter alia, the companyts of raw materials, packing materials, companyversions and their profit margin.
The material facts are that the respondent assessee, M s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of edibles, marketed under the names of Potato Chips, Baked Cheetos Balls, Monster Munch, etc.
353 355/2002 A, dated 8th August, 2002, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, New Delhi.
The Revenue, however, accepted the incidence of sale at the time of purchase of the final products by the whole sellers from M s. Frito Lay India and number, as submitted by the respondent assessee, at the factory gate.
The Tribunal overruled the decision of the Appellate Authority inter alia stating that Merely because a deeming provision as companytained in the 3rd proviso has to be applied regarding the price of the goods sold in the companyrse of wholesale trade to a related person, it cannot be companytended that there was numbersale at all to the related person at the factory gate, as alleged by the Revenue.
Subsequently it calculated and paid the differential duty, on the price at which the final products were sold by M s. Frito Lay India to its wholesale dealers.
The place of removal, therefore, companytinues to be the assessees factory.
Aggrieved, the respondent moved the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals , Chandigarh.
Uptill 12th January, 1998, as much as 96 of these products manufactured by the respondent, were sold to M s. Frito Lay India, a related person, and the balance of 4 were sold to independent wholesale buyers.
Dissatisfied with the reply, the Revenue demanded duty of Rs.12,26,215/ .
GANGULY, J. These statutory appeals Civil Appeal Nos.
The Commissioner, however, held that the freight charges arising between the factory of the respondent and the depot of the related person were to be included in the sale price as the place of removal of the goods was the depot of the related person.
From 12th January, 1998, the sale pattern between the two was changed, wherein M s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. started manufacturing the aforesaid products on behalf of M s. Frito Lay India.
