1992 (12) TMI 122 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 4(l)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding pricing of goods for different classes of buyers.
2. Whether the price declared in Part-II for sales to industrial consumers should also apply to the price list in Part-1 for unrelated wholesale buyers.
3. Determination of assessable value under Section 4(1) in cases of different prices for different classes of buyers.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The case involved the interpretation of Section 4(l)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the pricing of goods for different classes of buyers. The appellants argued that goods could be sold at different prices to different classes of buyers as per the provisions of the Act.

Issue 2: The main contention was whether the price declared in Part-II for sales to industrial consumers should also apply to the price list in Part-1 for unrelated wholesale buyers. The lower authorities held that there was no distinction between buyers in wholesale trade and those under contracts, leading to the decision that the price in Part-II should be applied to Part-1 as well.

Issue 3: The determination of the assessable value under Section 4(1) was crucial in this case. The appellants argued that the price declared in the price list in Part-1 represented the assessable value of the goods when sold to unrelated buyers in wholesale trade. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 4(1) and concluded that a different assessable value could be determined for goods sold to a separate class of buyers.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order, which held that the price declared in Part-II should also apply to Part-1, was not sustainable. It was observed that the price charged should be based on the normal price at which goods are sold in wholesale trade, not on any extra-commercial consideration. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws cited by both parties but found them irrelevant to the specific issue at hand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the price declared in Part-1 represented the assessable value for goods sold to unrelated wholesale buyers, in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Act.