ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. The respondents were manufacturing certain chemicals and were selling the same at different prices to buyers (dealers/depots/consignment agents) located in different parts of the country. They treated the dealers in different regions as different classes of buyers and, accordingly, adopted different assessable values for their products sold to them. This was objected to by the department which issued SCNs to the respondents directing them to show-cause why the factory gate price for the Southern Region should not be adopted as the assessable value for the goods sold in the rest of the country. These SCNs, which raised demands of duty which were allegedly short-paid for the above reason, were contested by the assessee. The original authority confirmed the demand. But the first appellate authority set aside the orders of the original authority after holding that, if different prices were charged from different classes of buyers located in different regions, each such price was the normal price within the meaning of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Revenue has challenged the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Ld. SDR has reiterated the grounds of the appeals and earned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order by citing the Tribunal’s decision in Chemicals and Plastics India v. Coimbatore 2001 (135) ELT 876 (Tri-Chennai).
3. The short question which arises in these appeals is whether different dealers at different locations could be treated as different classes of buyers for purposes of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Gora Mal Hari Ram v. CCB and Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CCE to hold that, where a manufacturer of excisable goods sells the goods at different prices to different industrial consumers under different contracts, each such price shall be the normal price for the goods concerned for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act. These very decisions of the Tribunal have been followed by this bench in the case of Chemicals & Plastics India (supra) for holding that different dealers at different locations are required to be treated as different classes of buyers for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act. We have no reason to deviate from this consistent view. Therefore, we sustain the impugned order and reject these appeals.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 28.2.2005)