9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agarwal, Member (T)]. - Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of wires and cables which was chargeable to ad valorem duty and for that purpose they were filing price lists upto March 1994, declaring the price at which the goods were sold by them. However, on account of change in Central Excise Rules, filing of price lists was done away with from April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prices declared in pre 1994 price lists and accordingly sought to demand duty on the differential amount, amounting to Rs. 12,72,737/- for the period April, 94 to October, 94. 2. The show cause notices were confirmed by adjudicating authority ignoring appellant s plea that the price was reduced on account of competition in the market and every purchase was backed by the purchase order and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by alleging any flow-back etc. the price cannot be rejected and accordingly no duty is demandable. 3. Ld. DR however submitted that the appellant have not been able to show any cogent reasons as to why the higher price was charged from other customers and lower price from M/s. Southern Electric Co. In view of this the price at which the goods were sold to other independent customers has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selves, as this was a case of reduction in price which was referred to as discounted price by the appellants. The order itself states that invoices do not show any discount but only the net price charged from the customer. Therefore, it is clearly not a case of offering discounts but of reduction in prices. Since 60% goods were sold to Southern Electric Co., it has to be considered as normal price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
