9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty have been duly paid and accordingly allowed deductions in conformity with direction in the appellate order. Thus, the issue attained finality. Subsequent appeal by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before this Tribunal is hit by doctrine of merger. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/374/2009 - Final Order No. A/70081/2015 - Dated:- 17-11-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri M K Mall, AC (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Kapil Vaish, CA ORDER Per Anil Choudhary The Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 154/CE/LKO/2008 dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. 2. The brief facts are tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sevidol to these buyers and these supplies are generally made through their branch office at Ludhiana and some time directly from the factory at Lucknow. He admitted the collection @ ₹ 3 per kg as mentioned herein above. Mr. Gupta further mentioned that sevidol is a brand name of M/s Rohne-Poulenc Agrochemicals (India) Ltd. And they pay royalty to them for using their brand name and the same is recovered in part from their buyers. It was further stated that in the financial year 2000-01, debit notes were erroneously issued by oversight as price of that year was inclusive of royalty charges. 2.1 A show-cause notice dated 7.8.2001 was issued wherein it is noticed that amount of royalty for the financial year 2000-01 was reversed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1999-00 and ₹ 40,615.20 on the freight collected for the two financial year, total ₹ 82,934/-. Further equal amount of penalty of ₹ 82,934/- was imposed under Section 11 AC read with Rule 173Q for contravention of rules 9, 173F 173G along with interest on the duty amount. 2.3 Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the confiscation and redemption fine along with duty on freight recovered, vide Order-in-Appeal dated 13.9.2006 2.4 So far the issue of royalty is concerned, it was observed that the appellant have not produced evidence for payment of royalty to M/s Rohne-Poulenc Agrochemicals (India) Ltd., which needs to be considered by the adjudicating aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the parties. 4. At the very outset, we find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by 'Doctrine of Merger'. Vide appellate order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that royalty paid is deductible from the assessable value and the same will not form part of the assessable value if there is evidence of payment to the principal. Against this order, the Revenue did not prefer appeal. According to the direction in the remand order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority examined the matter and found that royalty have been duly paid and accordingly allowed deductions in conformity with direction in the appellate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
