1987 (8) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as appeals. Since the issue involved is identical, both the appeals are disposed of by a consolidated order and facts of one of the appeals are stated below. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant submitted price lists for approval of the assessable values in respect of N.D. Blocks of 15/16, 18/19 and 24/25 mm thickness on 8.6.78 effective from 1.6.78. The assessee was allowed to clear the goods provisionally on the value declared by them on the ground that they did not submit any sale bills etc. in support of the assessable value claimed for approval. The appellant had submitted sale bills ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri N. Mookherjee, Ld. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has pleaded that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) and in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Others v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. and Others reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (S.C.) the appellant should be allowed the following deductions :- (1) taxes (2) transport (3) interest on receivables (4) cost of distribution (5) discount. Shri Mookherjee, the Ld. Advocate, has pleaded that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the appellant and there being removal of the goods from the factory gate, the cost of distribution at duty paid sales depots cannot be taken into account for purposes of determining the assessable value of the goods. It was further held that separate price lists for the Government and other Departments were filed by M.R.F. distinct and different from the price lists in relation to dealers. Since different price lists for different classes of buyers are specifically recognized under proviso (i) of Section 4(1) of the Central Excises Act, therefore, merely because the product is sold at a lower price to the Government and its Department does not enable the MRF to contend that the difference in price with reference to an ordinary dealer a....