Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (10) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellants are engaged in the manufacture of plywood products at Kottayam, Kerala. They sell the products directly to wholesale dealers and consumers in Kerala and Tamilnadu, through its own sales depots at Bangalore and through consignment agents appointed for the purpose at Hyderabad and Bombay. Such depots and agents book orders of the Appellant s products from time to time in pursuance of which the appellant despatches its products from its factory to the said depots and agents. As far as sale in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the goods are directly despatched to the purchasers whereas in the case of sales in Hyderabad and Bombay, they are despatched to concerned depots/agents who deliver the same to the concerned purchasers and raise bills for an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... il Nadu and the said price list was approved is not in dispute. 2. The fact that the appellants have also filed price lists under Part II in respect of sales in Hyderabad and Bombay and the said price list was approved by the Department is not in dispute. The fact that the sales to Hyderabad and Bombay are routed through depots and consignment agents is also not disputed. The only dispute is merely because the goods are routed through consignment agents whether the price approved under Part II ceases to be normal price within the meaning of Section 4. He pointed out the authority below proposes to revise the price list and recover the duty only on the ground that though there is a factory gate price approved under Part II in respect of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hrough depots and consignments agents. We may refer to the Order of the Tribunal in Amar Chemical Industries v. Collector of Central Excise (supra), in the said case the facts are as follows :- Amar Chemical Industries submitted a price list in Part I pertaining to sales to wholesale dealers and the said price was duly approved. The assessee also submitted another price list in Part II relating to sale of goods for sale to different class of buyers, in terms of Section 4(l)(a) proviso (i) for sale of goods to two of its customers, namely, Indo-Kem Ltd. and Rama-Kem Ltd. The price list indicated prices of the same goods as shown in Part I price list, but at somewhat lower level. A Show-Cause Notice was issued proposing to adopt Part I pri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . In the instant case, the ld. DR for the Revenue has not questioned the genuineness of the price in respect of the goods to be sold to the two customer companies. In other words, he has not questioned the Part II price list submitted by the assessee and approved by the department. He is only questioning the non-applicability of the said price list only on the basis of the movement of the goods from the factory to the customer companies via godown of the assessee at Bombay. We do not think that the movement of the goods in the aforesaid manner would in any way effect the contract price of the goods sold by the assessee to the customer companies. Section 4 of the Act does not concern itself with the movement of the goods; nor does it place a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fer to self depots. It is submitted by the appellant that the gate passes and invoices categorically mentioned that the goods are routed through consignment agents and depots. Therefore, there is no suppression of facts. The appellants have also filed gate passes indicating clearance from appellant factory to M/s. M.D. Goel Sons, Hyderabad. Similarly, the stock transfer invoice dated 4-7-1981 also indicates consignee s name as M.D. Goel Sons. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no suppression of facts and the department is not justified in invoking the longer period of limitation as the appellants have categorically indicated in the gate passes and also in stock transfer invoices the name of the consignees. Further in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates