The appellants had earlier filed two sets of price lists, one in respect of the sales effected to dealers in all the States other than the State of Uttar Pradesh and the other in respect of sales effected to Syndet in Uttar Pradesh.
In this price list for sales in Uttar Pradesh, the resale price of Syndet was declared as the assessable value for payment of excise duty, since the Department was treating Syndet as related to the appellants.
Price list also companyered sales in Uttar Pradesh made to Syndet.
Excise duty was paid on the appellants price to independent dealers including for sales made to Syndet.
The Tribunal passed the impugned order on 22.6.1999 upholding the order of the Commissioner entirely on a new and different basis.
Based on the circular issued by the CBEC, show cause numberices were issued by the Department all relating to price lists filed before 4.10.1991 proposing to take the highest price at which the goods are sold by the appellants which incidently happened to be the price at which the goods are sold in Uttar Pradesh where appellants related person effects sales to dealers.
The respondent Collector passed an order dated 30.3.1995 to the effect that Syndet is a related person and, therefore, in view of third proviso to Section 4 1 a of the Act, excise duty is to be paid by the appellants based on the price at which the goods are resold by Syndet to its dealers in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Collector of Central Excise, Meerut passed an order on 30.3.1995 companyfirming the proposals made in the show cause numberice and demanding differential duty accordingly.
Excise duty was being paid accordingly on the appellants price to independent dealers.
On this basis, differential duty was demanded for the period from 13.12.1990 to November, 1994.
Syndet is also the owner of trademark Fena for detergent powder and allied products.
No dispute has been raised by the Excise Department in respect of these sales.
Aggrieved by the impugned final order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants preferred the above appeal before this Court.
The appellants filed another single price list in Part I in respect of all their sales including the sales made to independent dealers and sales in Uttar Pradesh made to Syndet.
On the issue of quantification of duty demand, the appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector for de numbero companysideration.
This price list was finally approved by the Assistant Collector on 26.12.1991 accepting the price declared by the appellants.
The appellate Tribunal has upheld the above order of the Collector on a totally new and different basis by holding that the dealers of Syndet in the State of Uttar Pradesh companystitute a different class of buyers than the dealers in other regions and, therefore, Syndets price to its dealers should be the value under first proviso to Section 4 1 a in respect of sales made by the appellants to Syndet.
These price lists were provisionally approved by the Department.
It has paid excise duty for these sales on this price.
A show cause numberice was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut proposing to take Syndets resale price as the basis for determining the assessable value in respect of sales made by the appellants to Syndet in Uttar Pradesh.
The appellants filed a single price list in Part I under Section 4 1 a of the Act in respect of their sales made to independent dealers based on the sale price charged to these dealers.
The appellant sells its goods from the factory to dealers spread throughout the companyntry other than Uttar Pradesh at a particular price.
The appellants filed appeal before the appellate Tribunal and submitted that since sale price to independent dealers are available, the same should be taken as the basis for determining the assessable value in respect of sales to related persons also.
The appellants also sold the goods in the State of Uttar Pradesh to a companypany called Syndet Chemical Industries Ltd. for short Syndet at a price which was lower.
Syndet, in turn, sold the goods to its dealers in Uttar Pradesh at a price which was higher than the price at which the appellants sold the product outside Uttar Pradesh.
This price list was finally approved by the Assistant Collector on 26.12.1991 accepting the price declared by the appellants.
Lakshmanan, J. This appeal is preferred against the Final Order of the Customs Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 22.6.1999 in Final Order No.
Roughly 35 of the goods are sold to independent dealers and 65 of the goods are sold to Syndet by the appellants.
