Garware Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants filed a price list in part 1. at the same time they had also filed a price list in form ii. it was held by the assistant collector that where part i price lists were prevalent, part ii price lists could not be filed for the same goods. before the collector (appeals) the plea made was that a price was separately negotiated with the buyer on account of the large quantity being purchased by him. the collector (appeals) observed that price lists in part i also would suffice where the provision existed for quantity discounts being shown.on this count he upheld the lower order, resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.2. we find this issued to be settled by the decision of the supreme court in the case of metal box india ltd. v. c.c.e., madras - 1995 (75) e.l.t. 449. in paragraph 12 of this order the court observed that a buyer who purchased small quantities of goods would stand in different class as compared to a buyer who purchased 90% of the manufactured goods and therefore, would certainly form a separate and distinct class. thus, the phenomenon of part 1 price list for regular buyers existing along with part ii prices for contract buyers being in existence together is permissible in terms of section 4 of the act.3. we allow this appeal with consequential relief, if any, according to law.

Judgment:
1. The appellants filed a price list in Part 1. At the same time they had also filed a price list in Form II. It was held by the Assistant Collector that where Part I price lists were prevalent, Part II price lists could not be filed for the same goods. Before the Collector (Appeals) the plea made was that a price was separately negotiated with the buyer on account of the large quantity being purchased by him. The Collector (Appeals) observed that price lists in Part I also would suffice where the provision existed for quantity discounts being shown.

On this count he upheld the lower order, resulting in the present appeal being filed before us.

2. We find this issued to be settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Metal Box India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madras - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449. In paragraph 12 of this order the Court observed that a buyer who purchased small quantities of goods would stand in different class as compared to a buyer who purchased 90% of the manufactured goods and therefore, would certainly form a separate and distinct class. Thus, the phenomenon of Part 1 price list for regular buyers existing along with Part II prices for contract buyers being in existence together is permissible in terms of Section 4 of the Act.

3. We allow this appeal with consequential relief, if any, according to law.