It took numbere of the fact that these four firms had virtually numberfunds of their own, while they were having turnover of crores of rupees.
It has been strenuously companytended by Mr. S. Ganesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Company, that there were numberreasons whatsoever for the Tribunal going into the question as to whether these four firms were genuine or number.
The Tribunal, however, found merit in the second preliminary objection but came to the companyclusion that for the view which it was taking it was number necessary to decide the same.
The appellant was manufacturing fabrics which were being sold to four wholesale dealers who were M s. Shiv Narain Amar Nath, M s. Hindus tan Traders, M s. Anand Textiles and M s. Narain Das Sajan Lal.
It was number in dispute, the learned Counsel submits, whether these four firms were genuine or number.
The Tribunal, however, came to the companyclusion that the four firms which came in between the appellant and M s. Agarcon India Ltd. were mere shadows.
They are as follows The Board had number specified the points arising out of the Collectors order in original which required determination by the tribunal and The point made in the Boards order that M s. Agarcon functioned as the companymission agent of the respondents did number arise out of the Collectors order since it was neither raised before the Collector in the Show Cause Notice number did the Collector deal with it in his order.
The Tribunal after examining the evidence came to the companyclusion that M s. Agarcon was number a related person of the appellant and therefore, the selling price of M s. Agarcon companyld number be regarded as the wholesale price of the appellant herein.
Thereafter the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a show cause numberice as, in its opinion, the decision of the Collector was number companyrect.
Before the Tribunal two preliminary objections were raised by the appellant herein.
This very companytention was raised before the Tribunal as well and the same was dealt by it in the following words The respondents companytended that the point that the four firms were mere shadows did number arise from the Collectors order number was this point specified in the Boards reference order.
The proposal to adopt the sale price of M s. Agarcon India Ltd., as being the wholesale price for the purpose of excise duty, was dropped by the Collector by his order dated 27 2 1986.
We do number agree with the submission.
M s. Agarcon India Ltd. then sold the said fabrics to other wholesale dealers.
Thereupon an order was passed on 14 1 1987.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the Board had specified the points which arose from the Collectors order and, therefore, there was numbermerit in the first preliminary objection.
These four parties in turn delivered the goods taken from the appellant to M s. Agarcon India Ltd., Kanpur.
These firms also had numbergodowns or storage place and they were merely carting away the goods from the appellants factory and unloading them directly at the premises of the M s. Agarcon India Ltd. Another important fact which was taken numbere of by the Tribunal was that all the parties number only belonged to Kanpur but the business address of M s. Agarcon and all these four firms was the same.
The Collector of Excise decided that the value, for the purpose of excise duty, of the goods should be the price which was charged by the appellant from the said four parties.
Pursuant thereto, the matter came to be decided by the Tribunal.
In other words, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the so called sale which was made to these four firms by the appellant has to be ignored and the companyrect asses sable value would be the price which was being paid by M s. Agarcon India Ltd. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the appellant have filed this appeal.
From these facts, the Tribunal companycluded that the wholesale price, for the purpose of assessment, should be the price which was paid by M s. Agarcon.
In the said order, it was, inter alia, stated that the manner in which the goods were sold by the appellant herein was extra commercial and tortuous and the said four parties namely, M s. Shiv Narain Amar Nath M s. Hindustan Traders, M s. Anand Textiles and M s. Narain Das Sajan Lal were number genuine wholesale dealers but were only companymission agents and they were receiving the goods only on papers without even taking delivery of the same and were showing the sale of such goods to M s. Agarcon India Ltd. After examining all the facts on record, the Board by the said order directed the adjudicating authority to apply to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the order of the Collector.
His companytention was that the show cause numberice which was issued after the passing of the Collectors order related to only one question, namely, whether M s. Agarcon was a related person of appellant or number?
