9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Central Excise Act 1944 had not been satisfied. Hence, that the ground taken by the Revenue in the appeal can not be sustained. The revenue also not placed any material on such allegations before the Tribunal. - Tribunal in the case of M/s Grasim Industries Ltd (2003 (12) TMI 101 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) had referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Grasim Industries Ltd [2009 (7) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] . In the case of TCP Ltd (2007 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) the issue involved is the inclusion of the packing charges in the assessable value of the cylinder supplied by the buyers, which is similar to in the present appeal. - No reason to interfere the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63) ELT.550(Tri.Del.) and CCE, Rohtak Vs Sujal Packaging Ltd 2013(295) ELT.317(Tri.Del.) 4. On the other hand, the Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore Vs Grasim Industries Ltd - 2014(304)ELT.310 (Tri.Del), dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue. It is further submitted that on the identical issue, this Bench in the case of M/s Transpek Industries Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara - A/1382/WZB/AHD/2012 dtd 4.9.2012 following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of TCP Ltd Vs CC Madurai - 2008(227) ELT.109 (Tri.Chennai) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue, we find that it is contented by the Revenue that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of TCP Limited Vs CCE Madurai 2008 (227) ELT 109 (Tri-Chennai), the ratio of which we respectfully produce below:- The appellants are manufacturers of liquid Sulphur dioxide and other chemicals. During the period of dispute [November 2004 - August 2005], they cleared liquid Sulphur di-oxide in cylinders supplied by buyers, on payment of duty on the basis of transaction value. The department wanted the amortized value of cylinders to be included in the assessable value. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued demanding differential duty of ₹ 9,495/- from the appellants for the above period and proposing penalty on them. Both the lower authorities upheld these proposals. In the resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld by them either in their own tonners or in the customers tonners or even through pipeline, shows that Chlorine is marketable as such. It is also not disputed that testing is optional and the testing charges have been charged only in those cases where the liquid chlorine was supplied in the tonners brought by the customers and the customers had requested for testing of their Cylinder/tonners. In these circumstances neither the cost of tonners nor their testing charges would be includible in the assessable value of liquid chlorine. In fact, in this case, the testing of the tonners belonging to the customers on their request is an activity different from the sale of Chlorine which is marketable as such and, hence the charges for such testin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
