9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n day to day basis but would be fairly stable. Revenue has not produced any evidence that the dates of the invoice produced before the Commissioner were so much different from the date of captive consumed goods that the prices are necessarily different. In the absence of these details, we do not find any merits in the contention of the appeal filed by the revenue and we agree with the finding of the Commissioner extracted above. Even on limitation, we find respondent has a very strong case. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1393/05- Mum - Final Order No. A/2863/2015-WZB/EB - Dated:- 27-8-2015 - Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) And Mr. S. S. Garg, Member (Judicial) Shri V.K. Shastri, AC (AR) : For the Petitioner Shri A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue. He submitted that the Commissioner has dropped the demand mainly on the consideration that the similar casting were sold by the respondent assessee to independent buyers at a price which was lower than the price they were paying duty on captive consumption and therefore then Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, there is no scope for demanding further duty. It was submitted that the casting by very nature are different and it cannot be said that the casting being sold to the independent buyer were the same as those captively consumed. Further, it was submitted that the Order in Original does not indicate the dates for which such invoices pertain and whether the period of such i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is also no evidence or reason to suspect the bonafides of the transactions between M/s. Kishor Pumps and other independent buyers or to suspect the price charged in such transactions. The show-cause notice also does not contain any other evidence to prove a case of under valuation of the goods in question. In the above circumstances, I do not find any justification to invoke the provisions of rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 for re-determination of the assessable value of the goods in question through cost construction method. 4. The only grounds of appeal are that the relevant invoices have been produced by the respondent assessee for the first time during adjudication and it is not clear whether the invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
