1992 (10) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of excise duty applicability on goods despatched to depots and consignee agents.
2. Determination of normal price under Section 4 for goods sold through depots and consignee agents.
3. Allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of longer period of limitation.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal concerned the Collector's order holding that prices declared under Part I were applicable for goods despatched from the factory to depots, even though prices were approved under Part II for those consignments. The appellant contended that the Collector's decision was incorrect as the goods were routed through consignment agents. The authorities below held that prices approved under Part II for sales in Hyderabad and Bombay could not be accepted due to the goods being routed through depots and consignee agents.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Amar Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, where it was held that as long as the genuineness of the price for goods sold to customers was not disputed, the fact that goods were routed through depots or consignee agents did not affect the nature of the price as the normal price under Section 4(1). The Tribunal concluded that the Department was unjustified in revising the price list and proposing duty recovery based on the routing of goods through depots and consignee agents.

Issue 3:
Regarding the allegation of suppression of facts and the invocation of a longer period of limitation, the Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts as the appellant had indicated in gate passes and stock transfer invoices that goods were routed through consignment agents and depots. As the price list under Part II was valid under Section 4, the Tribunal held that the longer period of limitation could not be invoked. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the approved prices under Part II for sales in Hyderabad and Bombay were valid, and there was no suppression of facts justifying the invocation of a longer period of limitation. The decision emphasized the importance of genuine pricing for goods sold through depots and consignee agents, following the precedent set in the case of Amar Chemical Industries.