ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture reclaimed rubber falling under Chapter 40 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They sell their goods on the basis of purchase orders placed on them by their customers who are manufacturers of various types of tyres for trucks, cars, two wheelers, cycles. The appellants considered each purchase order as a contract for sale of a particular grade of tyres and on this understanding of theirs they filed price list for the reclaimed rubber in the Proforma Part II which is prescribed for sales against contracts in terms of Section 4(1)(a) proviso (i) of Central Excise Act, 1944, that the sales is to different classes of buyers against contracts, show cause notices were issued to the appellants for the period 1-3-1990 to 14-5-1990 demanding duty of Rs. 18,378.59 which was confirmed in an order dated 8-7-1991 by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise who held that the prices declared by the appellants in Proforma Part II were for individual buyers, and not for class of buyers like industrial consumers, government and semi-government undertakings, Railways, etc. and hence the Part II price list was inapplicable. The Assistant Collector determined the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act by taking the highest amongst the prices for each month during the relevant period. The Tribunal decision in the case of Shakti Insulated Wires v. Collector -1990 (49) E.L.T. 554 was relied upon. The Assistant Collector’s order was upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune in the order captioned above leading to the present appeal.
2. We have heard Shri K.G. Kulkarni, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri V.K. Puri, ld. SDR. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the Shakti Insulated Wires v. Collector (supra) fully applies to facts of this case and it goes against the appellants. The relevant portion of the Tribunal decision has been quoted in the Commissioner (Appeals) Order. The Tribunal has laid down that there are no contracting parties in a case, like the present one, where it was a mere case of placing of orders by the buyers and confirmation thereof by the manufacturer at different prices. Hence, the Tribunal held, different prices could not be justified. As for the grievance of the appellants that the Assistant Commissioner has unjustly fixed the assessable value at the highest for the month, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the remedy for a situation of frequent market fluctuation in prices of the product would be in the appellants applying for invoice value assessment in terms of Rule 173C(11) before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is hence rejected.