COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. KANAM FOAM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue's appeal is directed against the Order -in -Original No. 36 of 2001, dated 16 -4 -2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. That order was passed pursuant to an order of remand of this Tribunal (E/139 to 142/93 -D, dated 8 -4 -93). The issue for consideration was the valuation of rubber foam goods manufactured by the respondents herein. The Commissioner held that there was no duty evasion in respect of sales made to related party inasmuch as those sale prices were same as sale prices to unrelated dealers. It is also submitted that sale to unrelated dealers came to about 80% of the total sales. The present appeal points out that the Commissioner's finding regarding sale price was reached on verification of only sample invoices, that there were some financial transactions between the respondent -manufacturer and the related buyers and the related persons resold the goods at a much higher price. On verification of the invoices of sales, it is now admitted that the position was the same in respect of other invoices also as in the case of sample invoices verified by the Commissioner. Therefore, the first ground has no factual basis. The second and third grounds become irrelevant in view of the settled legal position that where sale prices are the same for unrelated and related persons, the prices to unrelated buyers being the normal commercial price of goods, all the goods should be assessed at the normal sale prices to unrelated buyers. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has in this connection relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Plus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. - [2002 (143) E.L.T. A268 (S.C.)].

(2.) We find no merit in the present appeal. Once the sale prices are the same for unrelated and related parties, there could be no sustainable allegation that prices to related parties are favoured prices. In the present case, since it is admitted that sale prices were the same to related and unrelated buyers, it has to be held that there was no evasion of duty in the case of sales to related persons. Commissioner's order suffers from no error or illegality. There is no reason to interfere with the same. Appeal fails and is dismissed.