1995 (6) TMI 136 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of the Tribunal's order for pre-deposit of duty.
2. Interpretation of whether there can be more than one price for different regions based on commercial criteria.
3. Consideration of judgments cited before the High Court and Tribunal.
4. Stay of recovery of duty and granting total waiver of pre-deposit.
5. Remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants sought modification of the Tribunal's order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs 12.00 lakhs out of a total duty of Rs. 22,63,993.24. The appellants argued that a judgment cited before the High Court supported their case, indicating that different classes of buyers in different regions could have different prices. The appellants filed five price lists for dealers in different regions, contending that their case aligned with the cited judgment. The Tribunal considered the arguments and modified the order, granting a total stay of duty recovery and taking up the appeal for disposal.

2. The key issue revolved around whether multiple prices could be valid for different regions based on commercial criteria. The Tribunal noted that recent judgments, including the case of Travancore Cements Ltd., supported the notion of multiple prices for different regions. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' submission of five price lists for different regions and concluded that there could indeed be more than one price for different classes of buyers in various regions, modifying the earlier order accordingly.

3. The arguments presented by the appellants relied heavily on judgments cited before the High Court and the Tribunal. The appellants referenced specific passages from previous judgments to support their claim that different prices for different classes of buyers were permissible. The Tribunal considered these arguments, especially in light of the absence of any plea from the Revenue regarding a stay on the Tribunal's order or any pending matter before the Supreme Court.

4. In light of the arguments and judgments cited, the Tribunal granted a total stay of duty recovery, waiving the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal emphasized the applicability of the cited judgments to the present case and decided to proceed with the appeal for final disposal, indicating a favorable view towards the appellants' position based on the legal precedents presented.

5. The Tribunal ultimately remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The decision was based on the need to review the case in light of the cited judgments and to provide a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case. The adjudicating authority was directed to expedite the process, aiming for a resolution within three months due to the potential recurring impact of the case.