9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. E/2806/2007 is by the department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. IND-I/148/2006, dated 8-8-2007. Cross-objection No. 40/ 2008 is related to this appeal and the same is basically in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard the learned DR. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice.Perused the records. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. Learned DR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the depots are not the depots of the respondent who is only a job worker but are depots of Parle Products Ltd. Therefore, the depots cannot be treated as place of removal. He submits that the Board's instruction vide Circular No. 137/3/ 2006-CX4, dated 2-2-2006 was issued in different context and may not be applicable to the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of such goods. 3. The matter has been examined at the level of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It has been observed that the availment of credit and valuation for payment of duty are two independent issues. Further, the provisions under rule 2(t) of the CENVAT Credit Rules refers to definitions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Finance Act, 1994 for uniform understanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the respondents as a job worker. There is no question of sale by the job worker even though the duty is payable at the time of clearance from the premises of job worker. The sale price of the impugned goods is the price at which M/s. Parle Products Ltd. are selling. Admittedly, the goods are sold only from the depots of Parle Products Ltd. The Board's clarification is to the effect th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
