9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 10,000/- for off grade. Another price list in Part-II for dealers through depots was filed and approved for Rs. 18,500/- for standard quality and Rs. 2,000/- for off grade. A SCN was issued to the respondents on the ground that Depot transfer was not sales to dealers and therefore the Part-I price list was applicable to them, demanding BED of Rs. 59,769/- and SED 5,967/-. The ld. Assistant Collector vide his Order-in-Original No. 41/92, dated 27-4-1992 dropped the proceedings. On an appeal against this by Revenue, ld. Collector (Appeals) also upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the Appeal. The appeal was initially heard by us on 16-4-1998 and orders reserved. Before mind could be applied and orders passed, ld. Advocate for responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all sales from depots were only to dealers and not one sale was to other than dealers. He also submitted that the impugned order had therefore correctly upheld the Order-in-Original. 3. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and records of the case. In their decision vide Final Order No. 498/97, dated 17-2-1997 the Hon ble Tribunal at Madras had held that : Following grounds of appeal have been urged, (1) It has been held by various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and Hon ble Tribunal that factory gate price should be the basis of valuation for depot transfers. Citations of three such orders are given below as examples : (i) Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.)]; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers they were affecting sales both from the factory gate as well as from the Depot. He has pleaded that there is no single case of sale of goods to the industrial consumers from the Depot. This position was not controverted by the ld. JDR. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the grounds urged before us that since the price is available for sale at the factory gate that should form the basis for assessment. In the grounds of appeal, the ground taken is that transfer to Depot is not sale and Part-II price should not apply to it. Clarifying the position, the ld. JDR points out that the appellants had filed Part-I price list price the industrial consumers and Part-II price for the dealers. Be that as it may, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entical to that in the decision reproduced supra because :- (a) the grounds of appeal are exactly the same; (b) in both cases two class of buyers are recognised viz. dealers and other than dealers (name of `Industrial Consumers given being irrelevant); (c) depot sales were only to dealers; (d) Part-I PL was for sales to non-dealers at factory gate; and (e) Part-II PL was for removals to depots, which sold only to dealers. 5. Ld. JDR has contested that facts are different only on the ground that Part-I PL in the cited case is for `Industrial Consumers . This terminology is irrevelant. What is relevant is that two distinct class of buyers exist - dealers and others, in both cases. Ld. JDR has also argued that when goods are remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
