9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant/assessee in this case is a 100% EOU, manufactures disposable gas cylinder. During the period January to December 2000 the assessee cleared scrap arising out of the manufacture of disposable gas cylinder under the provisions of Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 as amended. The appellant assessee also cleared the final product i.e. disposable gas cylinder to the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under the provisions of Notification No. 82/92-C.E., dated 27-8-92 to an Advance Release Holder. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant/assessee directing to show cause as to why the demand of duty demand be raised against them on the ground that the clearances made by them un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand submits that the provision of Notification No. 2/95 envisages the calculation of export value as physical export and not deemed export. It is his submission that in the case of deemed export, there is no physical export and hence cannot be considered for calculation of FOB value, exported to appellant assessee. As regards the Notification No. 82/92, he submits that there is no permission which is brought on record by the appellant assessee's company before the lower authorities. 5.Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused record. As regards the calculation of export value of the appellant assessee company under Notification No. 2/95-C.E. dated 4-1-95, we find that the issue is now squarely covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsurance. Therefore, it is not an inflated value. It is an F.O.B. value. 23.I find that this issue remains discussed in detail in our earlier judgment in the case of Ginni International Ltd. v. C.E., Jaipur, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 172 (Tribunal) = 2001 (47) RLT 412, I am in respectful agreement with that decision of the Tribunal. Even assuming that Revenue authorities are entitled to determine value independently, they have no reason to exclude deemed exports while computing F.O.B. value of exports, for the reason indicated by me in the earlier paragraph. In these circumstances, revenue was in error in excluding the value of deemed exports while determining the F O.B. value of exports. It can be seen from the above reproduced paragraphs that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
