THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI LAJJA RAM, MEMBER (T) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAYAGADA Vs. IMFA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAUSE of dispute in the present appeal is the four price -lists filed by the respondents in Part -II which were in revision of the earlier four price -lists. Vide the present price -lists, the respondents have sought reduction in the prices against the earlier prices seeking approval of the same. It was contended by the respondents before the authorities below that the prices were reduced by them due to steep competition of the contracts entered by them with the reputed manufacturers like M/s. Jamshedpur Engineering and Manufacturing Ltd., M/s. Powmex Steels Ltd. etc. and the price -lists were accordingly amended and revised. Number of other reasons are like steep competition from small -scale manufactuers who are selling their goods at a lower rate by availing the advantage of lower electricity tariff, reduced sales tax, octroi, interest charges etc. Although the contract price was not doubted by the Assistant Commissioner, yet vide his Order, he did not accord his approval of price -lists at the lower rate on the ground that the Contact originally entered into by the respondents, with their buyers, did not stipulate any variation in the prices. As such, he rejected the respondents claim for approval of the price -lists at the lower rate.

(2.) ON an appeal filed against the above order, the Commissioner(Appeals) observed and held as under: - I have carefully gone through the record of the case as well as the appeal petition and submissions made at the time of personal hearing. I find that the Asstt. Collector has erred in holding that when the earlier price list was approved for a specified quantity that price cannot be reduced before completing the supply. The very argument seems to be absurd to me because there was no such clause in the purchase orders that the price quoted in the order would remain firm till the completion of the supply of the quantity ordered. In business parlance price factor is dependent on demand and supply. I, therefore, find no reason for upholding the Asstt. Collectors order, set aside the same and remand it to him for approval of the price lists as submitted because there is no evidence to show that the price was not the sole consideration for sale.

(3.) BEING aggrieved with the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.