TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted for PVC pipe pricing disparity based on cost variations.</h1> <h3>PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR</h3> PARKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 337 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Price variation between units, Substantiation of price difference, Cost factors affecting price difference, Evidence presented by appellant, Revenue's contentionsIn this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the pricing of PVC pipes manufactured at two different units. The appellant had units in Kashipur and Amritsar, with the Kashipur unit selling pipes at a higher price than the Amritsar unit. The Revenue rejected the price declaration for the Amritsar unit and assessed the goods based on the Kashipur unit's price. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing the appellant's failure to substantiate the price difference with comparative data or documentary evidence.The appellant contended that the price variation was justified due to different cost factors at each unit. Specifically, the Kashipur unit operated with a generator using diesel due to lack of electricity, while the Amritsar unit used cheaper electricity. Additionally, raw materials were sourced locally for Amritsar but from New Delhi for Kashipur, leading to cost differences. Moreover, the appellant highlighted that the Amritsar unit's products were sold to a single dealer, affecting freight costs compared to the widespread distribution of the Kashipur unit's products.The Revenue stood by the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, but the appellant provided evidence supporting their claims. They demonstrated that electricity and raw material costs were indeed higher at the Kashipur unit. Consequently, the appellate tribunal found the assessment based on Kashipur's price unsustainable and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all relevant cost factors in determining pricing differences between units for fair assessments.
TaxTMI 