9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. The duty demand in the present case is in respect of Poly Tetra Fluoro Ethylene Coatings (PTFE) manufactured by the appellant during the year 1994-95. This case had come up before us earlier and we had remanded the matter for fresh consideration vide our Final Order No. 218/2001-A, dated 21-5-2001 with the following observations. 8. We have considered the rival ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales tax as informed by the appellants. We, thus, find that all the above points have not been properly looked into and need detailed examination for quantifying the demand of duty. In the circumstances, we find that it is a fit case for remand. 2. The present grievance of the appellants is that the remand order passed has not gone by the above direction given by this Tribunal and has again fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price of the competitors was also comparable. In these circumstances, the only reasonable course for the Revenue authorities was to value the total production of 3084 Kgs. at the sale price of Rs. 1000 per Kg., treat the same as cum-duty price and levy central excise duty, if any, payable, after allowing them the small-scale exemption towards clearances up to an aggregate value of Rs. 30 Lakhs in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lected the normal price of the goods. The appellants are right in their submission that the value of their annual production of PTFE, including for the quantity captively consumed for coating of utensils by the appellant, should have been computed based on the unit sale price observed in respect of the quantity sold and not in the unreliable way in which the Revenue Authorities have gone about com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
