9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot marketable, the question of comparable prices does not arise since the comparison of prices can take place only when the goods are marketable - Thus, the Commissioner’s (Appeals) finding that as the goods were destroyed on account of non-marketability, the comparable prices cannot be adopted - Hence, reject the appeal filed by the department. - E/3974/2003 - A/143/2011-WZB/C-II/EB - Dated:- 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on method under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975, which is applicable for captively consumed goods. Subsequently, the jurisdictional range Superintendent directed the assessee to furnish information and evidence in support of assessable value declared by them in their invoice vide letter dated 4-5-95 and reminder dated 30-5-95. Since the assessee M/s. Parle Beverages Ltd., were also procurin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue was not objected to. The goods were not capable of being marketed since they had transferred these brand name to M/s. Coca Cola and hence, they have to destroy the goods. In view of these reasons it is not correct to adopt the price of the comparable goods. The adjudicating authority however confirmed the differential duty demand of Rs. 2,85,958/- vide order dated 17-3-2003. 3. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Accordingly, the order confirming the duty is uncalled for. Thus, the O-I-O No. K-III/158/2002, dated 17-3-2003 passed by the D.C.C.Ex K-III Division of Mumbai-IV Commissioner ate confirming the demand amounting to Rs. 2,85,958/- is required to be held as legally not proper and correct . 4. The department is in appeal against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. DR submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the demand is well within the time limit. However, the goods are not marketable by the assessee for the reason that the brand names of the goods were transferred to Coca Cola. Hence, the assessee had no option, but to destroy the goods. When the goods are not marketable, the question of comparable prices does not arise since the comparison of prices can take place only when the goods are market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
