2015 (10) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oducts in its factory at South Andamans. Some of these products are sold from the factory premises in South Andamans only to certain buyers. However, major portion of the products manufactured there are sold to other dealers from their numerous depots which are situated at different places in the country. The assessee had filed its declaration under Section 173C of the Central Excise Rules showing the price of the goods at which they were sold ex-factory and delivery basis. The respondent-Revenue found that there was a lot of price difference between the goods sold at ex-factory and delivery basis in comparison with the goods which were sold to the buyers from their depots. Investigation was carried out. Statements of two buyers, viz., Sri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erusal of the order of the Tribunal would demonstrate that it had taken note of the plea specifically raised by the assessee that the normal ex-factory sale price should be treated as normal price by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and to which only transportation cost could be added. Number of judgments were cited in support of this proposition which are taken note of by the Tribunal. However, on two grounds, the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee. These are:- (1) The ex-factory sale was hardly 2 per cent and most of the sales, i.e., to the extent of 98 per cent, were from the depots of the assessee which are situated at other places and not at the place of factory, i.e., South Andamans. (2) Thou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X