9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd., at lower price but the appellant is receiving the finished goods on payment of duty under Section 4A of the Act. When duty is paid on finished goods on MRP basis, the question of under-valuation on the intermediate product supplied by the appellant does not arise. As on the finished goods duty has been paid as per Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 therefore, on merits the appellant is having a good case. We further find that the appellant has disclosed their selling pattern to the department through a letter dated 9-1-2004 and the Superintendent of the Central Excise has examined the same and thereafter he referred the matter to the Dy. Commissioner for his consideration on 30-1-2004 observing that se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. The said letter was replied vide letter dated 9-1-2004 and thereafter the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter dated 30-1-2004 pointed out that such contracted sale price formed the sole and only consideration for sale. Thereafter, on 14-1-2008 a show cause notice was issued for demanding differential duty on account of under-valuation of the goods sold to M/s. Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd. The show cause notice was adjudicated and an impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Shri M.H. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that in this case a query was raised in November, 2003 and the same was replied on 9-1-2004 therefore, the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned A.R. submits that he has no knowledge of the subsequent period whether the sale pattern is allowed or not. On merits he submits that as per Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, there may be some flow of cash to the appellants from M/s. Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd., therefore, the clearance of the goods to M/s. Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd., is influenced. In these circumstances, he prays that the impugned order is to be upheld. 5. Considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. In this case, the appellants are clearing soap noodles to M/s. Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd., at lower price than on which they were clearing the goods to sister unit. We also observed that M/s. Aquagel Chemicals P. Ltd., is independently purchasing these soap noodl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
