2005 (3) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of cotton yarn. They market their product through consignment agents. During the material period (6/95 to 9/95), they removed the goods on payment of duty under Rule 52A invoices and their consignment agent sold the goods from their Depot under their own invoices. In one such instance, the price (as shown in the consignment agent s invoice) was lower than the factory gate price (as shown in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m was also rejected on the same ground by the original authority and this decision was also affirmed by the first appellate authority. Appeal Nos. 474 475/2003 of the assessee are against the decision of the lower appellate authority. 2. Heard both sides. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, in each of the above two cases, the goods covered under Depot invoices of the consignment a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terms of the long-established practice of textile industry. Learned JDR points out that this has been admitted by the appellants in reply to the show cause notices. 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Factory invoices issued by the appellants under Rule 52A were addressed to the consignment agent s Depot. But the corresponding Depot invoices made it appear that those invoices were issued from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X