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>Tribunal rules in favor of company in Revenue appeal on Ferro Silcon valuation, approves distinct price lists for quality grades.</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., COCHIN Versus TRAVANCORE ELECTRO CHEMICAL INDUS. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., COCHIN Versus TRAVANCORE ELECTRO CHEMICAL INDUS. LTD. - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 651 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Valuation of Ferro Silcon cleared by a company under different price lists.2. Whether the Part-I price list or Part-II price list should apply to sales made to depots.Analysis:1. The case involved a Revenue appeal against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the valuation of Ferro Silcon cleared by a company under approved price lists for different quality grades. The dispute arose when a show-cause notice was issued, contending that the Part-I price list should apply to sales to depots, demanding specific duties. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) both ruled in favor of the company, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, with the Revenue emphasizing that depots are not buyers qualifying for a different price list, while the company argued that all sales from depots were only to dealers, justifying the use of the Part-II price list.2. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that the approved factory gate sale price should be the basis for valuation for depot transfers. The Revenue argued that since some sales were made ex-depot, higher prices should apply, as it was unknown at the time of clearance to which channel the goods would be sold. However, the company contended that sales to industrial consumers were only from the factory gate, while sales to dealers were from both the factory gate and the depot. The Tribunal noted that there were two classes of buyers, with different prices approved for each, and concluded that the prices for respective buyers were acceptable. It was established that sales from depots were only to dealers, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing the settled legal position and lack of evidence to the contrary.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authority, emphasizing the acceptance of different price lists for distinct classes of buyers and the absence of evidence to challenge the marketing pattern of sales from depots to dealers. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, applying the precedent set in a previous decision with identical circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
