TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (6) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notices covering the period 1-4-1994 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, 1944. (ii) The case of Amar Chemicals Industries 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 deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Tribunal in the case of Travancore Cements v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 498 (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 Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustify that the price at which the goods are actually sold is not exceptional and the 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 P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g List No. 19/93-94; at price of Rs. 1,300/- per MT being Price List No. 9/93-94 for sales to M/s. Ultra Marine & Pigments Ltd., Ranipet; being Price List No. 16/93-94 for sales to M/s. Stephan Chemicals Ltd., Bombay; being Price List No. 21/93-94 for sale to Hindustan Lever Ltd., Bombay, were approved after finding therein to be normal contractual price vide Assistant Commissioner's Order 7/95, dated 31-1-1995 which the appellants have submitted to have attained finality as it has not been appealed against. Therefore supply at different Contract price to different buyers was a fact well known and accepted. There is no case of suppression. (d) In the present case, admittedly the negotiations were done by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., and no....