Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Gajanan Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 18 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(133)ELT793(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This is an application for early hearing. The Revenue involved is small. The plea made is that the issue is of recurring nature and the unit being in small scale cannot bear the continuous demands. On examination of the issue we find that the issue is well settled in law and that the appeals could be disposed of. We proceed to do so after granting waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 70,248/-.
2. The appellants are manufacturers of M.V. Parts. Their buyers are original manufacturers namely M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. at Kandivali and M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. at Satpur, Nasik. The sales were on the basis of contracts. The prices charged for the same products from these two units were different. 4 show cause notices were issued taking the higher value as the base and demanding differential duty. Before the Assistant Commissioner the assessees claimed that the two units were separate entities that they had separate Central Excise & Sales Tax Registration. The contracts were separate and therefore there was nothing unusual in offering of different prices. The Assistant Commissioner held that although the units were differently situated the company was the same. In this belief he confirmed the duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the reasons for the difference in the prices were not substantiated by the appellants and therefore the findings of the lower authorities were correct. Hence the appeals.
3. We have seen the written submissions made by the appellants on the basis of which disposal of their appeals is prayed for. We have seen the replies made before the lower authorities. Before the Assistant Commissioner the claim was made that they were different buyers. Before the Commissioners (Appeals) a significant point was raised and that was that the contracted offtake to the Nasik unit was twice as that to the Kandivali unit and therefore more favourable prices were offered. It was submitted that there was no relationship between the buyers and the sellers and that the two companies situated at two different places should be considered as separate classes of buyers. In spite of this very clear justification made before him, we are surprised that the Commissioner merely adopted the reasoning (or the lack of it) in the lower order.
4. We have seen the cited judgments. In the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise -1998 (102) E.L.T. 416 the Tribunal held that there could be more than one assessable value for the same class of buyers also. In another judgment relied upon by the appellants different prices were charged for the same goods to the same buyers, one being a contract price and the other price being for quantities offered beyond contractual quantities. The two prices were upheld by the Tribunal in the case of Sterling Abrasives Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 284 (Tribunal).
5. In view of the fact that the two buyers were separate Central Excise entities and the fact that variations in prices were linked with the quantum of supply, we accept that there could be two contractual prices to the two buyers. The impugned order does not sustain. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.