Final Order No. 2145/97-A arising from in Appeal No. E/3584/89-A. Case: Vxl India Ltd. Vs Collector of C. Ex., Chandigarh. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberFinal Order No. 2145/97-A arising from in Appeal No. E/3584/89-A
CounselFor Appellant: Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.
JudgesU.L. Bhat, President and Shri K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 4
Citation1998 (99) ELT 449 (Tribunal)
Judgement DateDecember 16, 1997
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

U.L. Bhat, President, (New Delhi)

  1. Order-in-Original No. 146/D/89, dated 17-3-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is under challenge in this appeal.

  2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of woollen fabrics, filed price list on 21-2-1974 reducing the price and this was approved the very next day. On 26-2-1974 and 27-2-1974, appellant cleared 22,177.20 metres of woollen fabrics at different gate passes at approved price. The goods were transferred to the sale outlet attached to the factory. Duty on the approved (reduced) price was paid on these clearances. Verification of sale invoices at the sale outlet showed that the entire quantity had been sold to different parties at prices higher than the reduced price. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 12-7-1976 was issued proposing demand of differential duty on the differential price and imposition of penalty. Appellant contended that bulk of the clearances on 26-2-1974 and 27-2-1974 had been sold at the wholesale prices and a small quantity had been sold at higher rates and a substantial quantity had been sold at still lower rates. Sales of small quantity of fabrics at higher rates were retail sales and cannot furnish the basis for the allegation that the goods had been sold in wholesale at higher prices. Appellant also alleged that the show cause notice was barred by time as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Originally, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. His order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the facts on record were not taken into consideration. After remand, the Additional Collector took up the matter for adjudication and confirmed the demand, overruling the contentions of the appellant. This order is now challenged.

  3. We have been taken through the show cause notice, the annexures thereto and a chart presented by the appellant along with the reply to the show cause notice. The demand relates to woollen fabrics of various qualities. The facts disclosed are as follows:-

    Quality No.

    Total quantity in metres sold at approved price

    Quantity in metres sold at higher price

    1106

    2163.80

    63.60

    1108

    494.55

    15.50

    1140

    1900.20

    84.80

    1205

    258.40

    20.10

    1211

    729.60

    21.70

    1214

    785.70

    12.20

    1219

    712.40

    29.80

    1233

    2038.65

    185.30

    Quality No.

    Total quantity in metres sold at...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT