9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yers, which include various Public Sector Undertakings. At the request of some of the buyers, the goods are also sold at the Company s Depots as a special service to the said buyers. The appellant also cleared a portion of the goods on stock transfer basis and sold the same from the depot on payment of appropriate duty. Up to 31-3-1994 (i.e. prior to the amendment of Rule 173C of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1994), the appellant was filing Price-lists in Part I (meant for sales falling under the erstwhile Section 4(1)(a) and discharging duty on the ex-factory price, which was the normal price. Therefore, under the invoice system introduced w.e.f 1-4-94, the appellant started filing a declaration along with requisite documents, as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated one and was not genuine. Penal provisions were also invoked in the show cause notice. It can be seen from the above narration that there was an overlapping of the period covered in the show cause notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner. 2.2 The Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No. C. Ex. 88/97 dated 29-12-1997 confirmed the demand and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1478/2000 dated 24-10-2000 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority. In de novo adjudication, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 17/2002 dated 19-6-2002 again conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner, has followed the remand order of the appellant and recorded a findings that there is ex-factory prices and this ex-factory price can not be termed as bogus. Despite that, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded on the eligibility of the deduction claim of the appellant from the total realization and confirmed demands. It is her submission that this approach of the Adjudicating Authority is against the remand order. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the learned Adjudicating Authority had proceeded on the ground that since all the issues are kept open, the issue was decided on the basis of the claims made by the appellant before him. He would reiterate the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to independent buyers and price thereof is ascertainable. The other point for consideration is whether the low sale turnover at the factory gate as compared to the gross sales turnover could be the ground for alleging that the ex-factory prices are not genuine and representative of normal price as defined under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, in the absence of any documentary evidence adduced by the department in support of allegation that the ex-factory price to the independent buyer is artificial and deliberately kept low in order to prove that the price charged at sale depot are normal prices satisfying the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, ibid. I have gone through the case laws cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
