9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .6.2004 though correct in principle is wrong on facts as he does not refer to the letter dated 15.4.2005 of the appellant at all. The CESTAT is wrong in turn because on facts there was no imposition of penalty for the delayed period. - impugned order of CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal No. 3610/2005 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - A. K. Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr V Lakshmikumaran, Adv., Mr M P Devanath, Adv., Mr Vivek Sharma, Adv., Ms L Charanaya, Adv., Mr Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr R Ramachandran, Adv., Mr Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr Anandh K, Adv. and Mr Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr A K Sanghi, Sr. Adv., Ms Nisha Bagchi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower. This novation of the price contained in the purchase order was accepted by the appellant vide a letter dated 15.4.2002, by which the appellant gave the necessary undertaking. By a letter dated 17.10.2002, M/s DHBVNL informed the appellant that the meter rate as per the new rate contract had been decided at ₹ 600 /- FOR and, therefore, this being lower than 5% of ₹ 700/- per meter, which would have been the penal amount on account of delay, the said rate of ₹ 600/- per meter was fixed against delivery of the aforesaid meters. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 18.6.2004 held that as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, where the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was before the goods had been removed from the factory premises in May, 2002. Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue argued that in principle the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct and that any subsequent variation of price between the parties after removal of goods from the factory premises cannot possibly be the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is clear that by their letter dated 15.4.2005 the original purchase order dated 31.10.2001 was novated insofar as price was concerned. The novation turned out to be that a price of ₹ 600/- per meter had been charged. ₹ 600/- per meter being less than 5% of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
