2008 (7) TMI 705 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand based on price differences post-1994 rule change.
- Allegation of special discounts to a specific dealer.
- Challenge on duty demand upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing wires and cables, who stopped filing price lists post a change in Central Excise Rules in April 1994. The department alleged duty demand based on selling goods at lower prices to a specific dealer compared to pre-1994 price lists.

2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the show cause notices, disregarding the appellant's explanation of price reductions due to market competition and increased discounts to maintain machine operations. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the challenge by the appellants.

3. The appellant argued that the duty demand was unjust as similar price reductions were offered to other customers, not just the specific dealer mentioned. The appellant emphasized that the price reduction was not about discounts but a general price decrease, making the duty demand unreasonable.

4. The Departmental Representative (DR) countered by stating that the appellant failed to justify the price differences among customers and insisted on demanding duty based on pre-1994 price lists. The DR acknowledged the lack of comparable pricing but focused on the declared prices and actual sales prices to the specific dealer.

5. Upon review, the Tribunal found fault with the lower authorities for assuming special discounts to the specific dealer, which were actually general price reductions. The invoices did not indicate discounts but reflected the net price charged. The Tribunal emphasized that unless evidence showed transactions were not standard or influenced by other factors, the price to the specific dealer should be considered normal.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellants due to the absence of evidence casting doubt on the genuineness of the price reductions. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, highlighting the unsustainable nature of the duty demands based on the price differences post the 1994 rule change.