9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Fresh Compressed Yeast falling under Chapter 21 and during the relevant period was selling the same to two different wholesale buyers M/s. Continental Stores, Mumbai and M/s. Cyrus Yeast, Mumbai. The price at which the goods were being sold to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market in the vicinity areas i.e. Mumbai, and as such low selling price was charged from M/s. Cyrus Yeast to sustain the local competition. They also challenged the demand on the point of limitation. 3. The Additional Commissioner, however, did not find favour with the above submission of the appellants and confirmed the demand as proposed in the notice along with imposition of personal penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smuch as it is not the duty of the manufacturer to find out the relationship between its different buyers. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken note of the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. CCE, 2001 (133) E.L.T. 97 wherein it was held that the different price is permissible within the same class of buyers provided no extra commercial considerations we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of buyers justifying two prices for the same components. In the instant case there are two different buyers. Merely because they are being controlled by one proprietor will not effect their status. As such, we are of the view that two different prices for the two different buyers classifiable as two classes are justifiable. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
