1990 (4) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay regarding classification of buyers under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 for electric wires and cables.
- Interpretation of contracts with wholesale dealers as different class of buyers under proviso to Section 4(1)(a).
- Consideration of clarification by Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 30-7-1976.
- Comparison with relevant case laws: Sharada Silicate & Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore and Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madras.
- Analysis of documents as contracts or order confirmations.
- Determination of whether the contracted parties constitute a separate class of buyers.

Detailed Analysis:

The case involves an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay regarding the classification of buyers under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 for electric wires and cables. The appellants manufacture these goods and filed price lists in Form Part-I for sales to wholesale dealers, later submitting price lists in Form Part-II under the proviso to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The dispute arose as to whether the contracted parties should be considered a different class of buyers. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) held that the contracted parties, wholesale dealers, were not distinct from other wholesale dealers, thus not qualifying as a separate class of buyers under the Act.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the contract sales to wholesale dealers should be considered sales to a different class of dealers. He cited a clarification by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and relevant case laws to support his argument. However, the learned SDR contended that the contracted parties were not different from other wholesale dealers for whom assessable values were already approved under Part-I price lists, justifying the decision of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the documents submitted as contracts and found them to be order confirmations, not contracts in the legal sense. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal explained that while an agreement under the Contract Act may not be a contract, an agreement to sell goods under the Sale of Goods Act is enforceable in law and constitutes a contract for sale of goods. In this case, the documents were mere confirmations of orders, indicating no change in title or ownership of goods, leading to the conclusion that the contracted parties were not a separate class of buyers.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the decision of the Collector (Appeals) that the contracted parties were not distinct from other wholesale dealers, and therefore, did not qualify as a different class of buyers under the relevant provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.