M/S.Davangere Cotton Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal arises out of and directed against the order-in-appeal dated 9.11.1993 passed by the collector of central excise & customs (appeals), bangalore. heard both sides. the appellants m/s. davangere cotton mills, manufacture textile fabrics falling under 52, 54, 55 & 53 of ceta, 1985. they filed the price lists in pat i and part ii. show cause notices were issued demanding the duty on the ground that prices filed in price lists part ii to their dealers were lower than the normal price available for the same variety of goods indicated in part i of the price lists. accordingly duty was demanded.2. when the matter was called, shri m. chandrasekhar, general manager submitted that the very issue had come up for consideration before the tribunal for the earlier period in their appeal no.e 103 & 104 of '95a and the tribunal as per order no. 1214 & 1215/98 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. in this context he drew our attention to the paras 8 to 12 respectively.3. on going through the order referred to by the other side the learned dr has nothing to argue further.4. on considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that the very issue has already been considered by the tribunal in the very party's case, following the same we accept the appeal and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Judgment:
1. This appeal arises out of and directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 9.11.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs (appeals), Bangalore. Heard both sides. The appellants M/s. Davangere Cotton Mills, manufacture textile fabrics falling under 52, 54, 55 & 53 of CETA, 1985. They filed the price lists in Pat I and Part II. Show Cause Notices were issued demanding the duty on the ground that prices filed in price lists Part II to their dealers were lower than the normal price available for the same variety of goods indicated in Part I of the Price Lists. Accordingly duty was demanded.

2. When the matter was called, Shri M. Chandrasekhar, General Manager submitted that the very issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal for the earlier period in their appeal No.E 103 & 104 of '95A and the Tribunal as per Order No. 1214 & 1215/98 decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In this context he drew our attention to the paras 8 to 12 respectively.

3. On going through the order referred to by the other side the learned DR has nothing to argue further.

4. On considering the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration that the very issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in the very party's case, following the same we accept the appeal and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.