2004 (11) TMI 110 - SC - Central Excise

Whether a particular buyer constitutes a class of buyers or not? Held that - Whether a particular buyer constitutes a class of buyers or not, will depend upon the trade practice. Each buyer is a class by itself since he can be distinguished from other buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, set aside the Assistant Commissioner s order. The very fact is that the law provides for filing of different prices for different classes of buyers and also the different forms for filing the price lists. There is no reason not to accept the price filed in Part-II until and unless it is shown that the low prices have been charged on extraneous circumstances. The Tribunal, has laid down a general proposition of law. But it has not applied its mind whether that law can be applied to the facts of this case. The Tribunal also does not indicate how and what material was there to show that TELCO was a different class of buyer.Both the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal are unfortunately bereft of any reasoning. Neither of them can be sustained. Accordingly the Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 regarding pricing to different classes of buyers.
- Determination of whether a buyer constitutes a different class of buyers based on trade practice.
- Application of the proviso under Section 4 in pricing goods at different rates.
- Evaluation of the reasoning provided by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal in determining different classes of buyers.
- Lack of reasoning in the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 4(1)(a):
The case involved a dispute over the pricing of goods to different buyers by a company. The Assistant Collector correctly noted that for the application of Section 4(1)(a), the company needed to demonstrate a normal trade practice and show that the buyer in question belonged to a different class. The Assistant Collector emphasized the importance of providing material to support these aspects and held that the company failed to establish why a different price was charged only to a specific buyer.

2. Determining Different Classes of Buyers:
The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on the reasoning that a buyer could be considered a different class if there was no relationship between the buyer and the seller, and if there was evidence of trade practice supporting such classification. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that merely charging different prices does not automatically categorize buyers into different classes. The Court highlighted the necessity of averring and proving specific reasons why a buyer should be considered a different class.

3. Application of the Proviso under Section 4:
The Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal discussed the proviso under Section 4, which allows for different pricing to different classes of buyers based on established trade practices. However, the Court found that there was a lack of evidence or reasoning to support the conclusion that the buyer in question was indeed a different class. The absence of any material demonstrating a trade practice or specific reasons for classifying the buyer differently led to the dismissal of the orders by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

4. Evaluation of Reasoning by Lower Authorities:
Both the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasoning in their orders. The Tribunal, while laying down a general proposition of law regarding pricing to different classes of buyers, did not apply this law to the specific facts of the case. The Court highlighted the lack of analysis on whether the law could be applied in this scenario and criticized the absence of material to support the classification of the buyer as a different class.

5. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to the lack of reasoning and evidence supporting the classification of the buyer as a different class. The Court emphasized the importance of providing factual evidence and specific reasons to establish different classes of buyers, rather than solely relying on the variation in pricing.