Revised price list approval and technical procedural breach did not sustain differential duty demand or penalty.

Where clearances were made on the basis of a revised price list pending approval, and that revised price list was later approved, the basis for any differential duty demand ceased to exist, so no differential duty was recoverable. Although there was a technical breach of the price-list procedure under Rule 173C(2)(vi) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the circumstances did not justify penal action, so the penalty was not sustainable. The overall demand and penalty therefore could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether differential duty was recoverable when the revised price list, though not approved at the time of clearance, was approved subsequently; and (ii) whether penalty was sustainable for the technical breach of the price-list procedure.

Issue (i): whether differential duty was recoverable when the revised price list, though not approved at the time of clearance, was approved subsequently.

Analysis: The clearances were made on the basis of the revised price list pending approval, but that revised price list was later approved. In those circumstances, the basis for demanding or collecting any differential duty did not survive.

Conclusion: No differential duty was recoverable.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was sustainable for the technical breach of the price-list procedure.

Analysis: Although there was a technical breach of Rule 173C(2)(vi) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the circumstances did not justify penal action.

Conclusion: Penalty was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the departmental challenge failed.

---