9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts by invoking the Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were called upon to explain as to why the price of Rs. 2242/- per kg. of Triclosan in respect of sales to be effected in favour of M/s. Sodium Metal Private Limited and M/s. VVF Limited should not be adopted. The appellants filed detailed reply in this regard and contested the Revenue s case including the allegation of misdeclaration and under valuation. They contended that the Revenue cannot revise the value as brought out in show cause notice. The appellants have also filed large number of citations of Hon ble Apex Court judgments and the decisions of the Tribunal and contend that the price adopted by them wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 683. (b) Addition Co. v. CCE, Chennai reported in 1999 (84) ECR 587 (c) CCE v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 97 (T) = 2001 (44) RLT 336. He also relied on the Hon ble Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Metal Box Ltd. v. CCE, Madras reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that purchaser who purchases in bulk quantities is entitled to a discount as high as 50%. The ld. Counsel further submits that if this decision is applied and from the price of Rs. 2242/- per kg. reduction of 46.4% is made, then the result is that the price would be Rs. 1200/- per kg. only. The ld. Counsel submits that in their own case the percentage of sale to one party is 97%. Therefore the minis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Sodium Metals. The ld. Counsel also relies on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court to plea that the demand of duty is time bar. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR submits that the Commissioner has given sufficient opportunities. The appellants had been put to warning that if they failed to appear on the next date of hearing then the matter would be decided ex parte. Therefore, the Commissioner cannot be faulted for having passed the impugned order. He pointed out that the bulk purchase was also sold at the same rate of Rs. 2242/- up to 94 and the revision took place to Rs. 1200 thereafter. After the revision there was no normal sale to other parties. He pointed out that appellants had stated that the price revision was due to the factor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
