9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, gone through the records. Heard ld. DR and perused the written submissions of the respondents. 2(i). Ld. DR stated that the respondents are manufacturers of fire bricks and mortar etc. They were availing relaxation of not filing Price List in terms of Rule 173C(11). The price of mortar captively consumed was shown by them as less than price charged by them from other customers/buyers. The respondents had thus paid less duty by undervaluing the goods, the products consumed captively. Therefore a show cause notice dated 26-12-1991 was issued to the assessee demanding the differential duty. 2(ii). The respondents had contended, inter alia, that for determining the value of assessable goods with reference to comparable goods, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the price should be less and accordingly they had made a declaration while paying the duty for captive consumption. They have also contended that while representing their case during adjudication before the A.C. they had furnished documentary evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant's certificate whereby the mortar used by them for captive consumption and purchased by them from outside market were compared and the comparative prices showed that their product was ascertained to be of lower price. Therefore they had produced documentary evidence to the A.C. in accordance with the Valuation Rule 6 so that the material characteristics of the product could be taken into consideration namely that of inferior quality for considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment in the case of Appollo Zipper Industries reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 126 will squarely be applicable. 6. The respondents in the written submissions have basically repeated the contentions made before the authorities below and have emphasised that they have supplied the documentary evidence that the quality of mortar used by them captively and the quality sold by them was different and that evidence has not been discussed at all by any speaking order. Since the product quality was different, therefore the assessment should have been allowed with reference to the Chartered Accountant certificate under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules. 7. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that ld. DR's contentions, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
