Separate appeals required for each central excise pricelist treated as a distinct cause of action in valuation disputes.

Each pricelist filed for different assessment periods was treated as a separate event for central excise valuation, because the assessable value under Section 4 depended on its own factual matrix, including contract sales, deductions and market enquiry. Where provisional assessment was adopted under Rule 9(B) read with Rule 173(C), the Tribunal held that one appeal could not cover all pricelists together because each gave rise to a distinct cause of action. Separate appeals were therefore required for the separate pricelists, and the appellant was directed to file additional appeals with COD applications.

---

---

Issues: Whether separate appeals were required for each pricelist, since each pricelist constituted a distinct cause of action for assessment under the central excise law.

Analysis: The dispute arose from multiple pricelists filed over different years, each relating to contract sales and assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Pending clarification of deductions and market enquiry, provisional assessment had been adopted under Rule 9(B) read with Rule 173(C) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that each pricelist was a separate event, turned on its own factual matrix, and therefore gave rise to a distinct cause of action. On that basis, the appeal could not cover all pricelists together and corresponding separate appeals were required.

Conclusion: Separate appeals were required for the separate pricelists, and the appellant was directed to file the additional appeals with COD applications.

---