1997 (12) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 146/D/89 dated 17-3-1989 - Differential duty demand on woollen fabrics due to alleged discrepancy in selling prices.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in woollen fabric manufacturing, reduced prices on 21-2-1974, with immediate approval. Subsequently, on 26-2-1974 and 27-2-1974, 22,177.20 meters of fabrics were cleared at the approved price. However, a show cause notice dated 12-7-1976 alleged that the fabrics were sold at higher prices than approved, leading to a demand for differential duty and penalty imposition. The appellant argued that most sales were wholesale at approved rates, with only a small portion sold at higher prices, primarily in retail. The appellant also contended that the notice was time-barred due to no intent to evade duty. The Assistant Collector initially confirmed the demand, but the Collector (Appeals) overturned the decision, citing oversight of facts. The Additional Collector subsequently upheld the demand, prompting the current appeal.

2. The tribunal reviewed the show cause notice, annexures, and a chart provided by the appellant. The data pertained to various qualities of woollen fabrics and revealed discrepancies in selling prices. The analysis showed that while most sales were wholesale at approved rates, a small quantity was sold at higher prices, primarily in retail. Notably, some fabrics were sold below the approved price for certain qualities. The tribunal acknowledged the mix of wholesale and retail sales, concluding that the higher rates were only applicable to retail transactions, not wholesale. Consequently, the tribunal found no evidence of wholesale sales at rates exceeding approved prices, rendering the question of limitation irrelevant.

3. Based on the above assessment, the tribunal overturned the impugned order, allowing the appeal lodged by the appellant. The decision was grounded on the understanding that the majority of sales were wholesale at approved rates, with higher prices confined to retail transactions. As a result, the demand for differential duty and penalty was deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the order-in-original and the appeal's success.