9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 388 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
- Difference in selling price to two wholesale buyers - Allegation of duty evasion - Challenge on the point of limitation - Imposition of personal penalty - Interpretation of different classes of buyers - Tribunal's decision in similar cases Analysis: The judgment revolves around the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of "Fresh Compressed Yeast," facing a demand of duty due to selling the product at different prices to two wholesale buyers. The dispute arose as the appellant charged a lower price to one buyer within Maharashtra compared to another buyer outside Maharashtra. The authorities alleged duty evasion due to the relationship between the buyers and the same proprietor controlling both businesses. The appellant argued that the buyers catered to different markets, justifying the price difference to sustain local competition. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demand and imposed a penalty, which was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) on appeal. During the hearing, the appellant reiterated that the buyers were independent and catered to distinct markets, emphasizing that the price difference was based on commercial considerations. The lower authorities cited a precedent but failed to consider the appellant's explanation for the price gap. The Tribunal referenced a similar case where different prices for the same product were deemed justifiable for different classes of buyers. The judgment emphasized that despite the same proprietor, the buyers were distinct classes, warranting varied pricing strategies. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders, allowing the appeal and providing relief to the appellant. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the concept of different classes of buyers and upholds the appellant's practice of charging varied prices based on market considerations. It highlights the importance of commercial justifications for price differentials and sets a precedent for similar cases involving distinct buyer categories despite common ownership.
|
