Differential sale realisation through consignment agent did not prove extra consideration for flats; duty demand and penalty failed.

Differential realisation received through a consignment agent was held to relate to the sale of stainless steel patta/pattis after further processing, not to additional sale consideration for stainless steel flats. The evidence included customer-wise quantities, sale rates, and month-wise remittances after deduction of commission, job charges, and labour charges. On that basis, the assumption underlying the duty demand was not proved, so the demand could not be sustained. As the penalty was founded on the same allegation, it also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the differential realisation received through the consignment agent represented additional sale consideration for stainless steel flats so as to justify the duty demand and penalty, or whether it represented sale proceeds of stainless steel patta/pattis after further processing.

Analysis: The evidence produced showed that the consignment agent had effected sales of patta/pattis to customers, maintained month-wise accounts of remittances to the appellant after deducting commission, job charges and labour charges, and kept customer-wise break-up of quantities and sale rates. On this material, the excess realisation was found to relate to the sale of patta/pattis and not to the sale of stainless steel flats. Since the demand was founded on the assumption that the higher realisation pertained to the flats, the basis of the duty demand was not established. Once the demand itself failed, the penalty founded upon the same allegation also could not stand.

Conclusion: The duty demand and the consequential penalty were not sustainable.

---