TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. -  Of the two appeals Appeal No. 4401/89-A is posted today. Both appeals are directed against the same order in appeal dated 10-4-89 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay. Therefore, with the consent of both sides we called for appeal file E/2071/89-A and heard both the appeals together. 2. Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of penalty. Appellant resisted the notice on merits contending that on 10-12-85 appellant had actually filed a revised price list but it had not been approved and as a matter of fact had declared the lower price and therefore, there could not be any liability to pay duty on the earlier higher price. Overruling this contention, Assistant Collector confirmed the demand but refrained from imposin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....form to this rule, may entail an imposition of penalty. Question is whether failure to conform to the rule would result in liability to pay differential duty on the price approved in November, 1985 which was more than the price at which goods were sold during the period in question. If a revised price list is xx filed, the proper officer would be required to conduct an enquiry. The scope of the en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced price was genuine, the question of liability to pay duty on any price different from such genuine price would not arise. Appellant had filed a price list in Part II, effective from 10-12-85 in respect of goods to be supplied to M/s. Bayer India on a contract at the rate of Rs. 4586.40 PMT. The price of goods sold to independent buyers from 10-12-85 to 3-1-86 was Rs. 4680/- PMT, which is more t....