- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.P. Mathur and Sri Shishir Kumar, appearing for respondent-Union of India.
(2.) Petitioner has sought for quashing orders dated 24th February, 1988, 12th January, 1989 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Noida and Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi - respondent No. 4 and 2 respectively and further to direct the respondents not to impleadment the directions contained in letter dated 17th April, 1989, of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Noida and further to approve the price list submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of duty under Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was given a show cause notice earlier in respect of sales to different units engaged in bottling of its product in terms of Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
(3.) According to the case of respondents and as per said show cause notice the price list so filed by the petitioner in para 2 are for different manufacturers of the same class engaged in manufacturing the same product. Such customers are of the same class of buyers and as such the price list in part 2 are not applicable. The case on behalf of the respondents is that this is not applicable since provisions of Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Act is simply not attested and petitioner should have filed the price list in part I under Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The show cause notice supports the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold, the highest price taken by the department by which the petitioner sold to different customers of a different region. The petitioner urged that under Section 4(1)(a)(i) even by the uses of words"...wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, subject to existence of other circumstances specified in clause (a) be deemed to be a normal price would not affect the petitioner's case. Petitioner's case is that even if the prices are different for the same goods, the petitioner's sale in a different region then persons of that region to whom the goods are sold would classify to be a separate class by itself, thus, would be entitled for the benefit under the said proviso. We find the present case that there is nothing on the records on the basis of which such inference could be drawn. If the petitioner desires to prove this, he has to lead evidence to substantiate it.;