1997 (12) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ist in respect of goods stock transferred to consignment agents in various regions such as Amritsar, Patna, Bombay, Bangalore and sold through such agents. 1.2 The prices in Part [VII] were less than those in Part [I] list. This was because quantity sold by consignment agents was larger than those purchased by the consumers at their factory. The factory gate sales were only Rs. 5,000/-. 1.3 Prices mentioned in Part [VII] price list were those which the appellants expected to fetch on sale by the consignment agent. The Part [VII] price list also contained an undertaking that if the price ultimately realised by sale by the consignment agent was more than the declared, the appellants would pay duty on the difference. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct that would not be a mis-statement or suppression of facts. There was no deliberate attempt to suppress any material fact. In support of his proposition he cited the cases like J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 653, Sunil Plastic Industry v. CCE - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 576, CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.); CCE, Baroda v. Kosan Metal Products Ltd. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 573 (S.C.) and TISCO v. Union of India - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 605. 3. In view of this, he submitted that larger period by invoking proviso to Section 11A cannot be applicable in this case. In regard to duty on excess freight and excess insurance, he submitted that these are not part of manufacturing cost and in support of his conten....