9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T) [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. -1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr.(A)/293/VDR/2003, dt. 27-6-2003. 2. Heard ld. Jt. CDR. None appeared for the respondent. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- a. The respondents were selling their product at factory gate as well as through their depots. They have adopted lower prices for clearance to their various depots for the same goods compared to the prices at which they were available at the factory gate. Sixteen show cause notices were issued proposing differential duty of Rs.2,76,43,950/-; the demands related to the period from November 1994 to September 1999 and were proposed by ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod prior to 28-9-1996. However, for the period from 28-9-1996, he held that the demand of duty in respect of goods cleared by the respondent is no correct. Accordingly, he remanded the matter to the Original Authority to re-work the demand in respect of the goods sold from the depots prior to 28-9-1996, at which the goods have been sold to the customers under contract as normal price. e. The Department is in appeal against the said order. 4. Ld. Jt. CDR relies on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. M/s. Somaiya Organics India Ltd. [2007 (218) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2007-TIOL-198-S.C.-CX] and in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [2002 (146) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of C.Ex. Act,1944. Merely because they have sold the goods at lower price to other unit, does not mean that the said price is not correct or the same is not the sole consideration for the sale of such goods. In this regard, there is no change in the concept of sale of goods at the factory gate and the normal price thereof prior to 28-9-1996 or subsequent to this date. Therefore, in my view the demand with respect to duty in respect of goods cleared by the appellant to other units is not correct and the OIO in this regard is set aside. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also made a similar observation in case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Collr. of C. Ex., Madras reported at 2002(146) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.)." 7. For the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
