S. Venkatesan, President

1. This appeal was heard by Special Bench A, consisting of Members Shri M. Gouri Sankara Murthy and Shri K. Prakash Anand. The two learned Members have recorded separate orders disclosing a difference of opinion. The points on which there is a difference of opinion have been referred to me as President in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sub-section (1) of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

2. I have heard Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri V.M. Dopiphode, S.D.R., representing the respondent Collector. The basic facts of the case have been set out in the orders of the two learned Members. However, as the history of the case is somewhat long and complex, it would be helpful to set out the salient facts.

3. The appellants are manufacturers of auto lamps. The goods manufactured by them are sold partly to their 4 distributors, partly to industrial consumers and independent buyers, and partly to M/s. Mico and Caltex (Goods in the last category are sold under the brand name "Mico" and "Caltex").

4. It may be mentioned at the outset that the scope of the present controvers