2000 (11) TMI 198 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the customer companies are favored buyers of the appellant.
2. Validity of the provisional approval of the price list.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements in passing the order.
4. Adequacy of investigation conducted by the Assistant Collector.
5. Consideration of Rule 173-I provisions by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Pending Show Cause Notice (SCN) as a ground for appeal.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was whether the five customer companies were favored buyers of the appellant, M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. The investigation revealed that the sales were on a principal-to-principal basis at arm's length, indicating that the customer companies were not related persons or favored buyers under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The validity of the provisional approval of the price list was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the order did not specify the pending price list number. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Assistant Collector's order finalizing the price list, especially considering the matter was sub judice, and upheld the provisional assessment until finalization by the proper officer.

3. The Revenue raised concerns about procedural compliance, such as the lack of reference to the provisional approval order number and the period mentioned in the order. The Tribunal determined that the Assistant Collector's order was sufficiently clear and did not require specific references, as it indicated the final approval of price lists from a certain date.

4. The adequacy of the investigation conducted by the Assistant Collector was questioned, with the Revenue claiming that the Superintendent's enquiry report was not adequately discussed in the order. However, the Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector's order sufficiently considered the investigation reports and upheld the correctness of the Range Superintendent's actions.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not considering Rule 173-I provisions in the assessment. The Tribunal reviewed the Commissioner's findings and concluded that the appeal was pursued on technical grounds, with no material evidence presented to challenge the assessments made under the rule.

6. The pending Show Cause Notice (SCN) was cited as a ground for appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the pendency of an SCN does not invalidate the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, as the concerned authority must pass an order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding no substantial grounds to overturn the orders regarding the provisional approval of the price list, procedural compliance, adequacy of investigation, and consideration of relevant provisions.