9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed items as replacement spares meet certain emergency requirements and had paid duty in respect of such removals on their selling price should have been positively taken into consideration by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, which has not been done - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/567/2005 - Final Order No. 40956 / 2017 - Dated:- 13-6-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of plastic moulding, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants manufacture a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one declared and adopted by appellant which is ₹ 28.97. That appellants had not adopted the assessable value of 2% goods cleared by Pallavaram unit for identical goods. The method of valuation based on cost constuction should be resorted to only when the value of comparable / identical goods is not available. That Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the demand by accepting the contention of the appellant that Pallavaram Unit sold only small percentage as spares and that such price cannot be adopted as comparable price. Since there is gross undervaluation which was well within the knowledge of respondent, the appeal may be allowed. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent even though notice was issued. Being old matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as replacement spares by the latter instead of being used as original equipment. In the circumstances, I find that no mens ria can be attached to the Appellants in respect of the said action by their Pallavaram Unit. (b) In the instant case even such large scale transfers predestined for sale have not occurred. The Respondent Department have themselves admitted that only a small quantity, viz., 2% of the OE items that had been supplied by the Appellant had been sold to the replacement market by the Pallavaram unit. In the circumstances, the submission of the Appellant that the Pallavaram Unit while captively consuming in production 98% of the pumps supplied by the Appellant had sold the impugned items as replacement spares meet certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
