TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed rubber had been enjoying benefit under Notification No. 120/75 as an item falling under Tariff Heading 68 till 27-2-1986. Consequent on the introduction of Tariff Act, 1985 effective from 28-2-1986. Reclaimed rubber had been classified under Heading 4003.00 and Notification 120/75 rescinded. 2. Subsequently, M/s. Kerala Rubber & Reclaims Ltd., have filed price lists under Part-I primarily to cover sales at factory gate and to their Madras branch office, and Part-II price list for sales to industrial consumers. M/s. Kerala Rubber & Reclaims Ltd. entered into written contracts with M/s. Baldev & Sons Industrial Corporation, Jullander and Bindu Rubber Industries Private Ltd., New Delhi and got approved Part-II price list. 3.&em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s available. It also appeared that the amount of differential duty involved on such clearances will work out to Rs. 1,43,684.70. 5. It was therefore pointed out in the SCN that they have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 173C, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Inasmuch as they have manufactured and cleared the excisable goods of reclaimed rubber falling under sub-heading 4003 of the CET without paying full duty of excise leviable thereon, by suppressing facts in price list filed and by suppressing the fact of clearances to selling agents under the cover of price approval for industrial consumers and also contravening the provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and of the rules made thereunder with a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e price structure is relatively low will constitute a separate class of buyers notwithstanding absence of any previous contracts for sale with them. 10. He stated that the Addl. Collector ought to have noticed that insertion of names of the selling agents in the column provided for name of buyers in Proforma Part II, was occasioned by non-familiarity with the procedural provisions. In any view of the matter, it will not make any difference in fixing the assessable values in an enquiry under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A, so long as sales have been effected to actual buyers at the price named in the price list and they do constitute a distinct class as explained above. 11. It was also contended that the Addl. Collector has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is now seen that the appellants transferred from their manufacturing premises the goods concerned to their selling agents in Punjab & Delhi. When the goods are sent to their selling agents at Punjab & Delhi, the question as to whether they were selling the same to any particular buyers and the name of the buyers were not known at that point of time. At the point of removal of the goods the appellants was not in a position to say that the goods were not meant to be sold to any particular buyer. Therefore they were simply transferring the goods to their selling agents. It is at the point of removal of the goods the price is to be determined. At the time of removal of the goods it was not known as to who is the buyer then the price in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 9A also lays down that the rate of duty shall be the rate in force on the date of actual removal of goods from the factory. There is special rule for warehousing the goods which does not apply to this case. The appellant did not file any price list in connection with these goods which were being sent to the consignment agents. The assessee was unable to make any statement that the goods were meant for sale to Coal India Ltd. or for any Govt. Co. The Excise Officer was right in calculating the price which would have been payable by an ordinary customer as the `normal price' of these goods." 16. In that view of the matter, it is seen that when the goods transferred from the manufacturing premises to the selling agents in Punjab & ....