1984 (8) TMI 318 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Approval of price-lists for goods sold to different classes of customers.
3. Delay in filing revised price-lists.
4. Validity of claim for reassessment based on protest made by the appellants.
5. Application of Rule 173C and 173F in the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which transfers revision applications to the Tribunal for disposal as appeals.

2. The issue of approval of price-lists for goods sold to different classes of customers arises where the appellants charged different prices for sales to Government and industrial consumers. The Superintendent directed the appellants to revise their price-lists to show only one price for the same type of goods sold to different buyers in the same class.

3. The delay in filing revised price-lists after a favorable decision by Assistant Collector Shri Mohan Das was a key issue. The Assistant Collector, Shri Amarnani, held that the delay invalidated the approval of the new price-lists seeking a refund.

4. The validity of the claim for reassessment based on the protest made by the appellants was a crucial point of contention. The appellants paid duty under protest and sought approval for revised price-lists, which were initially rejected due to delay.

5. The application of Rule 173C and 173F was discussed, where the Department argued that since the prices were approved after the clearance of goods, the approval could not be effective earlier. The Appellate Collector's decision was supported based on these rules.

6. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had taken all necessary steps, including filing price-lists, paying duty under protest, and pursuing appellate remedies. Despite a delay in filing revised price-lists, the claim was not invalidated.

7. The Tribunal held that the protest made by the appellants in their letter dated 15-1-1976 was valid, and the new price-list filed by them for specific goods should be accepted. Goods meeting specific conditions were to be reassessed based on the approved prices, and a consequential refund was granted.

8. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants, clarifying the reassessment criteria for specific goods and granting the consequential relief based on the protest made by the appellants.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the Tribunal's decision in the legal judgment.