1997 (11) TMI 342 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of approved price lists for different buyers.
2. Calculation of excise duty based on different price lists.
3. Imposition of penalty and justification for differential duty.

Analysis:
1. The Department filed an appeal against the orders passed by the ld. Collector (Appeals) concerning the approval of price lists for different buyers. The Department argued that since the price lists were specific to certain products and buyers, the duty calculation should have been based on the approved price lists. The Collector (Appeals) erred in not recognizing the distinct prices for different goods under the two approved price lists, leading to a dispute regarding the proper application of Part-I and Part-II prices.

2. The Collector (Appeals) held that there was no valid reason to ignore the approved Part-II price lists and calculate duty based on the Part-I price list. The Collector emphasized that the two price lists did not show different prices for the same products, and there was no requirement for a specified quantity contract to avail of Part-II prices. The Collector concluded that the differential duty demanded based on the Part-I price list was not justifiable, leading to the setting aside of the duty demand.

3. The JDR highlighted the Asst. Collector's finding that the destination of the goods was unknown at the time of removal, which was not adequately addressed by the Collector (Appeals). Referring to a relevant Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that duty calculation at the point of removal should be based on the normal price for open market sale when the destination is uncertain. Applying this principle, the impugned order was set aside, and the Asst. Collector's decision was upheld, leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal and the dismissal of the penalty imposition due to lack of justification.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation of approved price lists, calculation of excise duty based on specific price lists for different buyers, and the application of duty calculation principles when the destination of goods is uncertain. The decision clarifies the importance of adhering to approved price lists and calculating duty based on normal prices in cases of uncertain destinations, ultimately leading to the allowance of the Revenue's appeal.