2001 (6) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of correct contractual price for goods cleared at different rates to the same buyer.
2. Validity of demand for duty based on different prices charged to the same buyer.
3. Applicability of established principles of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Time-barred demands and the requirement for re-quantification.
5. Consideration of different prices for goods sold to buyers of the same class.
6. Justification of prices based on commercial considerations.
7. Acceptance of supply at contracted prices.
8. Production of separate contracts for verification.
9. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The issue revolved around determining the correct contractual price for goods cleared at different rates to the same buyer. The Assistant Commissioner found that selling the same goods at different prices to the same buyer was unjustified and ordered the enhancement of the price, demanding the differential duty and imposing a penalty on the appellant for intentional evasion of duty.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Collector's orders, citing Section 4(1)(a) and established valuation principles. He also addressed the time-barred demands and directed re-quantification for certain periods.

3. The appellants argued that they supplied goods as per terms in purchase orders, highlighting different uses in different regions for different units of the buyer. They also mentioned non-submission of price lists due to Rule 173C amendment and presented relevant case laws to support their position.

4. The Tribunal considered the issue of different prices for the same class of buyers, emphasizing commercial considerations. Referring to departmental instructions and previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal found no flaw in accepting supply at contracted prices and dismissed the demand for duty enhancement.

5. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had filed separate price lists for different buyers in the past, which were approved as normal contractual prices. They emphasized the acceptance of supply at different contract prices and the absence of suppression or cause for penalty.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders, allowing the appeals based on findings that the supply at contracted prices was in order, and there was no justification for demanding duty or imposing a penalty.