2001 (6) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 30-9-1994, were issued demanding duty. (i)  Show cause notice dated 25-10-1994 for the period 1-4-1994 to 30-9-1994 as Sodium Sulphate cleared to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. at Rs. 675 /- and Rs. 1,300/- per MT was proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 3,700/- per MT. (ii)  Show cause notice dated 27-4-1995 for the period 10/94 to 3/95 where the rate of Rs. 675/- was proposed to be enhanced to Rs. 3,700/- per MT. (iii) Show cause notice dated 6-12-1995 for the period 4/95 to 10/95 proposing to enhance the rate from Rs. 675/- per MT to Rs. 1,300/- per MT. After hearing the assessee the Assistant Commissioner found...... "the issue to be decided is whether the assessee can enter into a contract with a buyer for the supply of Sodium S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stries v. CCE - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 85 (T) is not relevant as in the said case the Tribunal upheld two different prices for 2 different bulk customer companies. The case of MMTC (1984 (15) E.L.T. 148(T) cited by the appellant is not applicable, since the same relates to valuation under the Customs Act. (iii)  He found that the demand for the month of April, 1995 was clearly time barred and for the month of May, 1995 he held that if the RT-12 return was filed on or prior to 7-6-1995, the total demand for the month of May, 1995 was filed on after 8-6-1995, the show cause notice will be in time. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to examine this aspect and requantify the demand. 4.Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants have filed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....98 (T) held under Para 11 that the price charged from various industrial consumers from different regions represent the price under Section 4 and the assessable value should be determined on the basis of different prices charged from different consumers from different states. The Appellant submits, undoubtedly the buyer is the same namely M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., but the price agreed to for different regions is different. (vii) It is not alleged, nor is it confirmed in the adjudication order that any extra commercial consideration existed and there was any flow back of the amount to the Appellant. (viii) Appellate Authority has not given a finding on the Appellant's plea about imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the Appellant. 5.We....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....price at which the goods are ordinarily sold......" Examining these instructions along with the instructions issued on Proforma II price lists approved by Board (F. No. 202/34/85 Ex. 6, dated 3-10-1985 Cir-34/85) to accept even ORAL CONTRACTS. We find no case for the Revenue, to reject price to the supply of the said goods on "Purchase Order" as submitted by the appellants. These orders are placed on the appellants by the Buyer at the price of Rs. 650/- per MT especially, when we find that Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Jayashree Chemicals Ltd. [1999 (108) E.L.T. 710 (T)] has upheld the Purchase Orders to be fully satisfying the terms of the 'Contract Price'. In any case, there is no allegation or finding that the supply against the 'purch....