SUPER ELECTRONICS Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is a manufacturer of CD music player. The present appeal is directed against a differential duty demand of about Rs. 1.4 lakhs in regard to 206 pieces of model 'TMC -400' cleared by the appellant during the period December 1994 and January 1995. The differential duty demand has been made on the ground that, according to the price declaration filed by the appellant before excise authorities, the normal price of a set was Rs. 8,333/ -while the 206 pieces in question were cleared after payment of duty on a price of Rs. 5,000/ - per set.

(2.) THE explanation of the appellant all along was that the 206 pieces were accumulated stock and had some defects and were therefore sold to M/s Alpine Industries, a dealer, at the agreed price of Rs. 5,000/ -. This explanation of the appellant was not accepted by the revenue partly for the reason that in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, value is the "normal price" at which "such goods" were sold and also that proof was not produced about the defective nature of the goods.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that revenue has not produced any material to show that price charged for the sets in question was not the normal price or that it was a favoured non -commercial price. There is also no evidence to show that the goods were not accumulated/defective stock. Learned Counsel has also submitted that 'normal price' of a consignment is the price fetched in a commercial transaction and such a commercial price has to be accepted for valuation. He has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BOC India v. C.C.E., Mumbai II - 2005 (124) ECR 101 in support of this contention.