- (1.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the West Regional bench at Mumbai of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'cegat).
(2.) The factual position giving rise to the controversy is as follows:
(3.) The appellant (also described as 'assessee') had filed a price list in Part I of the Format prescribed for determination of value under Section 4 of the Central excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'act') for the compressors manufactured by it. It also filed price list in Part II for the same kind of compressors showing a lesser price of Rs. 150/- of assessable value per compressor than in the Part I price list for sales to alleged bulk buyers. Notice was issued proposing disallowance of the lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers did not constitute a different class of buyers and cannot be distinguished from other wholesale buyers; there cannot be more than one price for the same class of buyers. In the notice it was alleged that the claim for lower price on the ground that the bulk buyers purchased a substantial-quantity had not been justified. The Assistant Collector declined to accept the assessee's contention that the price was on account of the fact that the bulk buyers constituted a different class because of the quantity of compressors that they purchased and higher purchases in the past than other buyers. He confirmed the proposal in the notice.;