Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

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)

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
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 DateTuesday December 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...

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