1987 (12) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether M/s. Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. were entitled to separate prices for short length pieces of fabrics.
2. Whether differential duty was rightly demanded by the Assistant Collector from the respondents on sub-standard, short length fabrics.
3. Validity of the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) setting aside the Assistant Collector's orders.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The main dispute in the appeals revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to separate prices for short length pieces of fabrics. The Assistant Collector had initially held that the respondents were not entitled to lower prices for short lengths, citing the description of fabrics in the price lists as a reason. The Assistant Collector demanded differential duty from the respondents on sub-standard, short length fabrics. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) overturned the Assistant Collector's decision. The core issue was whether the prefixes used by the respondents on the fabrics adequately conveyed the sub-standardness or damage in the fabrics to justify lower assessable values.

Issue 2: The Appellant-Collector argued that the respondents failed to provide sufficient information in the classification and price lists to justify lower assessable values for short length fabrics. The Collector contended that there was no provision allowing assessment of short length fabrics at values lower than standard length fabrics. However, the respondents explained that the prefixes on the fabrics indicated the degree of sub-standardness or damage, supported by gate passes, invoices, and packing slips. The Assistant Collector's order highlighted the absence of remarks in the price lists explaining the significance of the prefixes, leading to the dispute.

Issue 3: The Tribunal examined the correspondence between the respondents and the department, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector had opportunities to verify the correctness of the lower assessable values declared by the respondents. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector (Appeals) that there was no evidence suggesting that the respondents realized higher prices than declared in the price lists. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals, concluding that the respondents were justified in their pricing methodology for short length fabrics.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the entitlement of M/s. Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. to separate prices for short length fabrics, the validity of demanding differential duty, and the correctness of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in setting aside the Assistant Collector's orders.