ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal dated 4.4.1985 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.
2. The matter relates to the assessable value of the goods cleared against the orders placed upon the appellants prior to 1.8.1979 — the date on which they have revised their prices upwards. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the contentions of the appellants on the ground that as per their printed price list, the ruling price was to be the price on the date of the despatch and not the date of the order.
3. The matter was posted for hearing on 1.2.1996, when nobody had appeared for the appellants. A telegraphic notice had been sent to the appellants addressed at New Delhi with no response. Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR, is present for the respondents.
4. Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR, referred to the facts of the case and submitted that the appellants had filed price list Part-I which were duly approved. When they revised their prices, the price lists were again filed in Part-I which were also duly approved. They wanted that for the clearances after 1.8.1979 for some of their customers, the old price list (pre-revised) should be made applicable. This is not according to the law. The learned JDR pleaded for the rejection of the appeal.
5. We have carefully considered the matter. The learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had noted in his order that the printed price lists of the appellants specifically indicate that the goods will be invoiced at the rate ruling on the date of the despatch. He has further said that this has not been denied by the appellants. On this ground he had concluded that the normal price i.e. the price prevailing at the time and place of the removal is the price prevailing on the date of the despatch and not the date of order, as had been claimed by the appellants.
6. While there is nothing illegal in having two prices for the same goods at the same time subject to the provisions of Section 4. In this particular case, the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), had disposed of the matter on facts of the case. In a case where the price as on the date of the despatch, is the ruling price, there should be no ground to pay central excise duty on the pre-revised prices unless the assessee can establish that the goods had actually been sold at reduced prices and had obtained the approval for the same for the proper Central Excise Officer. In this case, there is nothing on record that the goods were not invoices at the rate ruling on the date of despatch. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and in the circumstances we reject the present appeal and order accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court.)