ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Order-in-Original dated 31-8-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming duty demand to the extent of Rs. 4,10,393.47 and imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of figured glass falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 23A, was paying duty on the basis of approved assessable value.
3. The dispute in the appeal relates to the period 1981-1984. In the course of investigation, several documents were seized from the premises of the appellant and many of appellant’s customers and others. Investigation having showed that the appellants had collected extra amounts over and above the invoice prices during the period in question, collected certain amounts as commission from buyers and sales representatives of the appellant, sold some items at higher prices, show cause notice dated 28-4-1986 was issued stating the above facts in detail and proposing demand of differential duty on the aforesaid three elements as well as certain other elements. Show cause notice was resisted by the appellant and the officers of the appellant and certain others to whom notice had been issued. Appellant succeeded in part as a result of which original demand of Rs. 33,65,568.23 was reduced to Rs. 4,10,393.47. This demand is relatable to the three heads.
4. The major part of the demand has arisen on the basis of allegation that the appellant received higher amount by way of price from ten buyers situated in North India during the period in question. Appellant contended before the adjudicating authority that there was no collection of extra amount from any customers as alleged, that according to practice no customer would settle each individual bill at once or during any particular period, that the practice is that customers could buy goods as per requirement and make part payment as and when they are ready to make such payment and there is rarely an occasion where amount covered by each invoice is paid out immediately or in a lump sum or that the bills even for a particular period are settled on any particular day. In other words, there are running accounts between the manufacturer and buyers, buyers buy as per their requirement and make payment as per their convenience. When asked by the adjudicating authority to correlate these extra payments with particular invoices, executive directors of the appellant were unable to do so. This led the adjudicating authority to believe that such correlation is not possible and therefore amounts referred to above had been received as extra consideration in respect of the clearances during the particular period. This finding and approach underlying the facts are challenged by the appellant.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant took us through copies of certain ledgers and journals of the appellant as well as one or two buyers to show that no invoice had been paid in full on any particular occasion and between the two there had been running account showing debit or credit balance as the case may be. He also pointed out with reference to ledger maintained by the appellant that every debit entry arising out of supply of goods refers to invoice number also. We find reference to Folio 2-22 and all debit entries with number following ‘GS’. According to the learned Counsel, ‘GS’ number is the number of the corresponding invoice. That being so, it should be possible for the adjudicating authority, of course, with the active assistance and cooperation of the appellant to correlate, not individual payment against individual invoice but payment and invoices over a period. If such exercise is conducted, it will be possible to have a clear idea as to whether there were extra payments or not. In our view, the matter deserves to be examined afresh in the light of what we have indicated and the method already suggested.
6. Another dispute relates to the includibility of the assessable value of commission received by the appellant from buyers. Another dispute arises out of collection of higher prices. Since in regard to more important aspect, the case is being remanded, it will be worthwhile to have a fresh look at these aspects also, as suggested by both parties.
7. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant of assisting the authority in the matter of correlation as suggested and after giving the appellant opportunity of personal hearing.
8. Appeal is allowed.