9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed form for wholesale price for the said E.L.S.C. in the months of October-November, 1981. The appellants undertook a Sales Promotion Drive for the said product on Shaving Cream and devised a scheme of supplying free blades - "packet of five" - along with the Shaving Cream. They reduced the price of the ELSC with a free blades packet and paid duty on the reduced price after filing the price-list for the reduced price. They filed RT 12 return accordingly for the months - October-November, 1981. The concerned Range Officer, however, took objection that there cannot be two prices for the same excisable product namely Shaving Cream under Tariff Item 14F. The concerned Superintendent took the objection on the ground that the product, ELS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to reduce the price of any product. The Central Excise Act does not regulate the prices of the excisable products. It should, therefore, be assumed for the purpose of fixing the assessable value in terms of Section 4 that they have reduced the price for their product, Shaving Cream, during the months of October-November, 1981 and for which a price-list was duly filed. Unless there is evidence to show that there has been any flow-back to the appellants from its customers in these cases, the reduced price should be accepted. He points out that giving a free packet of blades along with ELSC cannot be considered to be an additional consideration to the customers i.e. the regional stockists to whom the wholesale sales are being made. Instead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or additional consideration can be said to exist influencing the price. He, therefore, prays for allowing the third appeal as well. 6. Learned J.D.R., Shri B.B. Sarkar for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He also submits that the Shaving Cream had already had a declared price from the appellants prior to October-November, 1981. Merely because they are supplying a free-blade packet along with the Shaving Cream, that does not make any change in character of the product namely Shaving Cream. Therefore, there cannot be dual price existing simultaneously with the other price-list already prevalent as availed by the appellants prior to October, 1981. He submits that there is nothing on record that the two prices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants as "ELSC with free-blade packet" has been sold at a price lower than the price of ELSC simpliciter as prevalent prior to October, 1981. They had duly filed the price list at the reduced price. There is no allegation in the Order of the Superintendent concerned that two types of goods namely "ELSC" simpliciter and "ELSC with free blade packet", were cleared simultaneously during the relevant period. In the absence of any such allegation, we agree with the learned Representative that their price as declared by them cannot be discarded unless there is any evidence to show that there is a flow-back to the appellants or some other additional consideration, has flowed from the buyers to the appellants herein so as to influence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
