9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of Pistons, pins and rings classifiable under sub-heading 8409.00 of the Schedule to Central Excise Act, 1985. They filed price lists. Price list No. 115/88 effective from 25-11-1988 related to purchase of excisable goods by the Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (ASRTU). Price list No. 12/88 effective from 28-1-1988 related to contract for the supply of the same goods to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. (MSRTC) who were a constituent of ASRTU. 3. Both the price lists were approved in terms of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. Subsequently, from 1989 the price of excisable goods covered by Price list No. 12/88 with MSRTC was revised upwards but no revised P.L. was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C was a constituent member of ASRTU. He further observed that once a contract is entered into, both the buyers and the sellers are bound to comply with the conditions laid therein. Since the appellants had paid the duty on the revised higher price as per Price list No. 12/88, which was in accordance with the provisions of Section 4, there can be no allegation that the appellants had collected the price at a higher rate and had not paid the differential duty. He also held that MSRTC and ASRTU were separate classes of buyers. 6. Appearing for the Revenue, Shri S.P. Rao, ld. JDR submitted that it was not disputed by the respondents that MSRTC was a constituent member of ASRTU and the excisable goods bought by ASRTU are for use by MSRTC also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh it was not disputed that MSRTC was a constituent of ASRTU. It was also on record that the respondents received payment for the goods sold to both the buyers separately. Therefore the findings of the Collector (Appeals) that the two parties were separate class of buyers and therefore, no duty differential arose, may be upheld. 8. We have considered the submissions made from both the sides. We find that the respondents had filed two separate price lists relating to two different buyers pursuant to two separate agreements with them. The price lists had been approved. The argument raised on behalf of the Revenue is that since MSRTC is a constituent member of ASRTU and ASRTU supplies the goods to all its constituents at a uniform price; th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by itself transform the buyers of Contract A and buyers in Contract B into one class of buyers even in cases where the seller as well as the goods are the same. Proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) clearly recognises the possibility of different classes of buyers and different prices. The contention of the Revenue that the contract with the MSRTC cannot be extended beyond the date on which the contract with ASRTU was concluded is not supported by any material to show that the parties to the contracts have treated them so. In Annexure V of the Memo of Appeal appellants have shown the details of the payments received by them from MSRTC for clearances covered by GP 1s in January, 1989. This further proves that MSRTC had continued to treat them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
