TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (10) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of those consignments. 2. The facts in brief are as follows : The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of plywood products at Kottayam, Kerala. They sell the products directly to wholesale dealers and consumers in Kerala and Tamilnadu, through its own sales depots at Bangalore and through consignment agents appointed for the purpose at Hyderabad and Bombay. Such depots and agents book orders of the Appellant's products from time to time in pursuance of which the appellant despatches its products from its factory to the said depots and agents. As far as sale in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the goods are directly despatched to the purchasers whereas in the case of sales in Hyderabad and Bombay, they are despatched to concerne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellants have filed price list under Part I in respect of sales in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and the said price list was approved is not in dispute. 2. The fact that the appellants have also filed price lists under Part II in respect of sales in Hyderabad and Bombay and the said price list was approved by the Department is not in dispute. The fact that the sales to Hyderabad and Bombay are routed through depots and consignment agents is also not disputed. The only dispute is merely because the goods are routed through consignment agents whether the price approved under Part II ceases to be normal price within the meaning of Section 4. He pointed out the authority below proposes to revise the price list and recover the duty only o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of sales in Hyderabad and Bombay can be revised on the ground that the sales are routed through depots and consignments agents. We may refer to the Order of the Tribunal in Amar Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise (supra), in the said case the facts are as follows :- "Amar Chemical Industries submitted a price list in Part I pertaining to sales to wholesale dealers and the said price was duly approved. The assessee also submitted another price list in Part II relating to sale of goods for sale to different class of buyers, in terms of Section 4(l)(a) proviso (i) for sale of goods to two of its customers, namely, Indo-Kem Ltd. and Rama-Kem Ltd. The price list indicated prices of the same goods as shown in Part I price ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that once the price at the factory gate is ascertainable the price at the depot is not relevant. In the instant case, the ld. DR for the Revenue has not questioned the genuineness of the price in respect of the goods to be sold to the two customer companies. In other words, he has not questioned the Part II price list submitted by the assessee and approved by the department. He is only questioning the non-applicability of the said price list only on the basis of the movement of the goods from the factory to the customer companies via godown of the assessee at Bombay. We do not think that the movement of the goods in the aforesaid manner would in any way effect the contract price of the goods sold by the assessee to the customer companies.....