9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T)]. - This appeal and the stay application are directed against order-in-appeal No. 42/MV/2008 dated 23-3-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd., the appellant, are manufacturers of cigarettes. The appellant file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it at 10% while arriving at the assessable value of the goods. The lower authority confirmed the above duty demands, against which the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected their appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been incurring losses continuously from 1995-96 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the profit before tax is negative. The learned counsel also points out that as per the apex court judgment in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Raymonds Ltd. - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), in respect of captively consumed goods, the value has been determined as per CAS-4 and the profit margin has to be decided on the basis of the figures in the balance sheet, on actual basis. 4. The learned SD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently since 1995-96 onwards upto 1999-2000 and the period of demand involved in the case is from April, 1997 to March, 1998. Therefore, it is not a case of the company making a loss for a given year and making profits in other years. Therefore, the ratio of the case law cited by the learned SDR is not applicable. On the other hand, the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Raymonds Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
