9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lists in Part I and II. Show Cause Notices were issued for the period from 25-5-1990 to 14-11-1991 demanding total amount of Rs. 89,219.73 on the ground that the prices filed in Price Lists Part II to their dealers were lower than the normal price available for the same variety of goods indicated in Part I Price List for the period 11-12-1989 to 31-8-1992. Also, more demands were for Rs. 1,33,285.28 and Rs. 31,477.80. All were confirmed by Assistant Collector. As the issue involved is same, both appeals are being heard together and disposed by a common order. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri A.V. Naik who argued on the following grounds : (a) that prices under Part I Part II can co-exist under Section 4 as long as they are on principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR. He reiterated the arguments in the impugned order-in-appeal. He argued that to qualify for class of buyers, their customers had to be other than mere wholesale dealers. He cited 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172 (Bom.) wherein it was held that different wholesale dealers cannot be treated as different class of buyers because of their being located in different town or places. 8. We have carefully considered arguments on both sides and the records of the case. We find that the decision in the case of Golden Chemicals was essentially one on trade discounts and the distinction between the legal position of Part II and Part I prices was made out in that context. The present appeal is not on grounds of denial of trade discounts. Hence that decision sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 4 thereof. On the other hand, Section 4 of CEA, 1944 prescribes a `normal i.e. even `deemed price. 11. The appellants cite the decisions of Sylvania Laxman Ltd. v. U.O.I. as reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 463 (Del.) wherein it was held in Para 9 as follows :- 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents has raised an interesting point that what has to be found out is the normal price" in a wholesale transaction in which case it will be Section 4(b) read with the relevant rules that would be attracted. It will be for the appropriate authorities of the respondents to find out, even if it is held that the parties do not fall within the mischief of the term related person . This is not the stand taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial Bench `A ) has followed the above Bombay High Court Judgment and held that the Part II prices, in view of being at arms length, are the correct assessable values in terms of Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, we find that similar approved Part II prices are assailed before us. However, there is no allegation at any stage that the contract between the buyer and the seller is tainted by any extra-commercial considerations/relationship and hence not at arms length. Therefore, these two decisions are on all fours with the facts of this case and we proceed to apply the ratio thereof. 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we need not consider the other grounds of appeal including that of limitation, as the appeals succeed in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
