2016 (8) TMI 1099 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of differential duty - duty short paid by showing the lower prices to their products which were cleared to few buyers than the prices they have charged to other buyers - Held that - we find that the first appellate authority has not considered the fundamental / factual matrix as to that during the period in question; different prices could be charged to different class of buyers. In order to appreciate the factual matrix we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Demand of differential duty based on alleged lower prices to specific buyers.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal regarding the demand of a differential duty from the appellant due to allegedly lower prices shown to specific buyers compared to others. The lower authorities found that different prices were charged to different buyers, leading to the demand for differential duty. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to consider the decision of the Apex Court in a relevant case. The first appellate authority did not adequately consider the possibility of different prices for different classes of buyers during the period in question.

The consultant for the appellant argued that they could demonstrate that the buyers in question belonged to a different class during the relevant period. Upon reviewing the documents, the Tribunal agreed that Section 4 of the Central Excise Act allowed for different assessable values for the same or different classes of buyers during the period in question. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue after following the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal kept all issues open and allowed the appeal by way of remand.