9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order on submission of price list without transport charges deduction, approval of price lists subject to packing costs inclusion, rejection of petitioner's contentions on transport charges deduction, invocation of Rule 173-C for fresh price lists submission, determination of transportation charges, and legality of reopening approved deductions. Analysis: The petitioner, a battery manufacturer, challenged an order directing submission of price lists without transport charges deduction. The petitioner's price lists were approved subject to inclusion of packing costs. The petitioner excluded transport charges, claiming them as actual costs. An appeal against this condition is pending. The authority sought fresh price lists without transport charges deduction, alleging equalized freight. The petitioner argued for actual transport cost deduction based on Supreme Court precedent. The respondents contended for adjudication on deductions. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order to reopen transportation charges determination. The judgment highlighted the importance of finality in approved price lists. The court emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to transportation cost deduction, whether based on average or actual costs, as already approved. It rejected the authority's attempt to reopen the determination based on equalized freight concept. The court distinguished a previous decision and directed the quashing of the impugned order and letters. A writ of mandamus was issued to prevent enforcement of the direction in the letters. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of the pending appeal on packing charges deduction within six months. In conclusion, the court made the Rule absolute, with no order as to costs. The judgment provided clarity on the legality of deductions in approved price lists and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to transportation cost deduction as approved. The court's decision emphasized adherence to legal procedures and principles laid down by higher courts in similar cases.
|
