TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e manufacturer of sugar under the Essential Commodities Act. Part of sugar, at the relevant time was allowed to be sold as "Free-Sale" sugar and part of sugar was to be sold at controlled rates to be fixed by the Government. We are concerned here with the period from March, 1978 to November, 1980. During this period the Central Government has passed orders fixing the rates of controlled sugar. The respondent was not satisfied with the said fixation and disputed the same by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad. Some interim orders were passed in the said writ petition filed by the respondent and other similarly situated manufacturers of sugar, allowing these manufacturers to charge higher price than the price that was fixed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner gave him opportunity to demonstrate as to how the respondent was claiming the amount realisable only to the extent of Rs. 13,54,773.74. The respondent, however, remained uncooperative and did not submit any detail required for requantification. In these circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed its earlier demand of Rs. 30,58,904.79. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter further before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 21.07.2006 and set aside the differential duty claimed by the Revenue. While allowing this appeal of the respondent, the Tribunal has referred to the judgment of this Court to the final order dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such class of buyers; (ii) where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder this Act and includes his agent; (b) "place of removal" means- (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; or (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, from where such goods are removed; (c) "related person" means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub- distributor of such distributor. Explanation.- In this clause" holding company","subsidiary company and "relative" have the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I as well as other buyers. Learned counsel for the assessee has sought to rely upon the proviso (ii) of Section 4 and on that basis he submits that since the price was fixed by the Government under the aforesaid Essential Commodities Act, that was the price fixed under the law and, therefore, in terms of the proviso the excise duty was rightly paid by the assessee by declaring the price as fixed by the Government. This contention is clearly misconceived. The controversy that arose which affected the sugar industries as a whole was as a result of introduction of Clause 5-A of the Sugar-cane (Control) Order and the Bhargava Commission Report of 1974. The contention of the sugar manufacturing units against the then notified price was tha....