1999 (5) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The issue relates to lowering the price. According to the department the appellants had lowered the value of the goods namely RIN 125 Gm., RIN 250 Gm., and Surf 48 x 500 Gms. CBHDPE manufactured and removed by them during the period 22-12-1986 to 30-6-1989 in their Sales Promotion Scheme. It was the finding of the Commissioner/Collector in his order that the noticee had actually lowered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... :- We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We accept the learned Senior Legal Manager s pleas that Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 does not regulate the prices of excisable goods. The manufacturers are free to sell the excisable goods at the price at which they like. But the assessable value has to be determined in terms of Section 4. In the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ein so as to influence the price declared by them. We also observe that no such evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue. Therefore, the price declared by them for the product, ELSC with a free blade packet", cannot be discarded. The appeals are therefore allowed. 3. He also submitted that subsequently the same ratio was followed by the Tribunal in the very party s case as per Order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X