Contract price and normal price principles led to rejection of duty demand based on higher declared prices.

Rectification was permitted where the Tribunal's earlier order had omitted to address whether removals at lower contract prices to the same class of buyers could support the duty demand. The Tribunal treated the omission as correctable by addendum and relied on the cited circular and administrative instruction recognising contract price, including an oral one subject to verification, and on the principle that the price prevailing at or nearest removal may be the normal price. As no record material displaced the lower contract prices, the duty demand based on the higher declared prices was not sustained, though penalty consequences for failure to file revised declarations were noted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application should be allowed by issuing an addendum to the earlier order, and whether duty demand could be sustained on the basis of prices lower than the declared prices where the lower prices were shown as contract prices for sales to the same class of buyers.

Analysis: The order under rectification had relied on the earlier Supreme Court decision, but it had not dealt with the specific question of removals at prices lower or different from the declared prices to the same class of buyers. The Tribunal treated this as an omission capable of being corrected by an addendum. In doing so, it relied on the cited circular and the administrative instruction that contract price could be oral and accepted subject to post-verification, as well as the guidance that the price prevailing at or nearest the time of removal could constitute the normal price. On that basis, and in the absence of material on record to displace the lower contract prices, the Tribunal held that duty demand on such prices was not sustainable. It also noted that, at most, penalty consequences could arise for failure to file revised declarations.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed, the earlier order was amended by addendum, and the duty demand based on the higher declared prices was not upheld.

---