Judgment:
1. Identical issues arise for determination in, the above appeals arising out of 2 separate orders of the Commissioner(Appeals); hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Duty demand of Rs. 311,16,49,260/- has been confirmed on M/s. Fiat India for the period April, 1998 to June 2001 and a demand of Rs. 49,28,80,265/- on M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. for the period June, 1996 to March 1998 by adopting the cost of production of the vehicles during the period in dispute as the normal price and rejecting the actual selling price of the goods which were being sold at less than the cost of manufacture/production.
3. On hearing both sides, we note that the issue in dispute has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corporation [2003(153)ELT 249 (S.C), wherein it has been held that in the absence of any allegation that the wholesale price to the buyers was for consideration other than the one at which it was purported to be sold or that it was not at arms length, and in the absence of any allegation that there was any flow back of money from the buyer to the assessee, it cannot be contended that the normal price was not ascertainable and there is no valid reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale price. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's order in accepting the wholesale price of the respondents therein as the correct price following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. [1983(14)ELT 1896(S.C.), setting aside the Commissioner's order of rejection of the price declared in the price list on the ground that the cost of production of the goods was less than the wholesale price.
The appellants before us have also explained that since they were launching new models of car, they were keeping the price of their vehicles at par with the price of other vehicles of the same segment due to competition in the market. This has been their stand even before the lower Authority. The Revenue has not been able to distinguish the judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn. supra by pointing out any allegation that the wholesale price to the buyers of the appellants was for extra consideration that the dealings between the appellants and their buyers were not at arms length or that there is a flow back of money from the buyers to the appellants. Therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Following the same, we hold that the wholesale price for the appellants' buyer is the normal price which is required to be approved.
4. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals.