Price-list exclusion under excise adjudication limits applies only to approval disputes, not consequential duty demands.

A Board circular prescribed monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise matters, while excluding cases relating to approval of classification and price lists. Where duty demands arose only after disallowance of an assessee's claim to maintain two price lists for different dealers, the dispute was treated as a consequential duty-demand matter, not as a case relating to approval of the price list itself. The text states that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in holding that the Assistant Collector's order exceeded the circular's adjudicatory limits and in remanding the matter, and that the appeal was dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudication of the duty demand fell within the monetary limits prescribed by the Board circular or within the exclusion relating to approval of price lists.

Analysis: The Board circular fixed monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases other than cases relating to approval of classification and price lists. The notices in question were issued for recovery of duty after the Assistant Collector disapproved the assessee's claim in the price list to have two sets of prices for different dealers. The dispute, therefore, arose from the consequent duty demand and not from a case relating to approval of price list itself.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was in holding that the Assistant Collector's order exceeded the adjudicatory powers under the circular and remanding the matter. The appeal was dismissed, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand arising consequentially from disapproval of a price-list claim is not a case relating to approval of price list for the purpose of the adjudicatory exclusion in the Board circular.

---