- (1.)This appeal is against the Judgment dated 28th July 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal (CEGAT).
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 2.1. The respondents manufacture, amongst other things, refractories. They sold refractories to one M/s vishakhapatnam Steel Plant under a contract entered into in 1992 at a particular price. They thereafter entered into four contracts dated 9th September 1993,11th July 1994, 24th February 1995 and 16th June 1995 to supply refractories to the said M/s vishakhapatnam Steel Plant. For the supply of refractories under these four contracts the respondents availed of the "duty exemption Scheme" contained in Chapter vii of the Export and Import Policy, 1992. It must be mentioned that in order to enable the respondents to avail of the Duty Exemption Scheme M/s Vishakhapatnam Steel plant surrendered the Advance Licences they held for import of refractories. Against such surrender the respondents were issued Advance Intermediate Licences for import of inputs. The respondents could thus import the inputs without payment of customs duty as well as get them at a lower price than what they would have paid had they purchased the same in India. The department claimed that the benefit derived by the respondents under the Advance Intermediate Licence, issued to them as a result of surrender ;of licence by M/s vishakhapatnam Steel Plant, was "additional consideration" towards the value of the goods and that this "additional, consideration" formed part of the price for purposes of excise duty. 2.2. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondents by inter alia holding as fol- lows:-
"In the instant case the appellant have availed the benefit from the customs duty under the advanced intermediate licences issued to them by the statutory authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions of the import policy. Such benefits are under the duty exemption scheme and have to be treated as statutory benefits allowed by the statutory authorities. The same can never be placed upon the platform of 'additional consideration' flowing to the manufacturer from the buyer, directly or indirectly. It has so happened that because of the benefit of the customs duty in terms of the said advanced licences, the appellants have been able to import the inputs without corresponding payment of customs duty which has resulted in lower cost of their final product. As the appellants could afford to sell their goods at a lower price they have offered the same to VSP, which was accepted by them and the contracts finalized. In these circumstances it cannot be said that any additional consideration has flown from vsp to the appellant, which is a condition essential for discarding the contract price between the buyer and the seller. "2.3. Before the Tribunal there was also a controversy regarding the'granting of deductions on account of central excise duty and central sales tax. There also the Tribunal has held in favour of the respondents. Before us the appellants have not made any submissions on those points.

(3.)Thus, the only question for consideration is whether the benefit gained by the respondents by reason of M/s Vishakhapatnam steel Plant surrendering its licences and on such surrender the respondents being issued licences, is additional consideration for the contract.