1999 (1) TMI 90 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the adjudication order confirming a duty demand and imposing a penalty.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules regarding price lists for excisable goods.
3. Determination of whether the buyers, ASRTU and MSRTC, constitute the same class of buyers for the purpose of differential duty demand.
4. Analysis of the contractual terms between the parties to establish separate classes of buyers.
5. Application of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act to determine the pricing and duty implications for goods sold to different buyers.
6. Assessment of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to decide on the appeal and cross objections.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside an adjudication order confirming a differential duty demand and penalty. The Additional Collector had upheld the duty demand on the grounds of pricing discrepancies between two contracts with different buyers, ASRTU and MSRTC.

2. The case involved the interpretation of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules concerning the approval of price lists for excisable goods. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing, had filed separate price lists for ASRTU and MSRTC, which were approved under the rules.

3. The key issue was whether ASRTU and MSRTC constituted the same class of buyers. The Additional Collector had confirmed the duty demand based on the premise that the buyers were the same class, leading to pricing inconsistencies. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the buyers were separate classes and upheld the respondents' compliance with duty payment.

4. The contractual terms between the parties were analyzed to determine the existence of separate classes of buyers. The respondents had entered into distinct agreements with ASRTU and MSRTC, receiving payments separately at the agreed rates, indicating the acceptance of different classes by both buyers.

5. Section 4 of the Central Excise Act was invoked to ascertain the pricing and duty implications for goods sold to different buyers. The Tribunal emphasized the possibility of different classes of buyers and prices, rejecting the Revenue's argument of extending the contract terms with MSRTC based on ASRTU's contract.

6. After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions. The cross objections filed by the respondents were also disposed of in favor of maintaining separate classes of buyers for ASRTU and MSRTC based on the contractual terms and payment evidence presented.