2006 (1) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby demand of Rs. 3,16,342/- was confirmed and penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of furniture items. The contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the benefi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arance is to be treated as cum duty price. In view of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Maurti Udyog Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 3. 4. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 11 of the impugned order held that the demand in respect of traded items are not to be included in the total value of the clearances. Inspite of this finding the duty demand was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X