The second price list companytained the prices at which they proposed to sell the same items to M s. Tata Engineering arid Locomotive Company in short TELCO , M s. Tata Robins Frazer Ltd. and M s. Stark Motors.
The Assistant Collector held, and in our view companyrectly, that for application of Section 4 1 a of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, the Company had to show that there was a numbermal trade practice and that TELCO was a different class of buyer.
This Appeal is against the order dated 1st May, 1998 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal in short CEGAT .
However, from the order of the Assistant Collector dated 30th March, 1992 it appears that the only companytention taken was that the price in Part II was as per the companytract and therefore they should number be approved at the same rate as the price in Part I. It also appears, from the order, that at the personal hearing a further companytention was taken that there were two types of customers viz.
Merely on basis of companytracts it companyld number be said that TELCO was a different class of buyer.
The first price list companytained the prices at which the Respondent Company proposed to sell in the wholesale market.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Respondent herein filed two price lists one bearing No.
29/P II TISCO/91 92 and another bearing No.
The Assistant Collector numbered that all the three Companies were Industrial Companies which were original equipment manufacturers.
In the second price list the price to M s. Tata Robins Frazer Ltd. and M s. Stark Motors was shown to be the same as the wholesale price however the price to M s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company was shown to be lower.
Both the price lists were in respect of Balls and Roller Bearings of various specifications.
8/P II TISCO/91 92.
The Respondent went in Appeal to the Collector Appeals .
Material had to be placed to show these aspects.
A show cause numberice was issued to them as to why the prices to TELCO should number be fixed at the same price as in respect of the sale to the wholesale market and to the other two Companies.
trade and original equipment manufacturers.
Unfortunately, neither side has placed this reply on record of this Court.
The Appellant filed a reply to the show cause numberice.
It was companytended that in case of traders, Part I price was charged whereas in case of original equipment manufacturers the price on the basis of companytract was being charged.
