9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : V. Padmanabhan, Member (T)]. - The appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 22-4-2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Isolators, Panel Board and Transmission Line Accessories falling under Heading 8535 30 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) he upheld the demand to the extent of Rs. 14,37,839/- along with interest and imposition of penalty. The balance demand of Rs. 11,52,183/- with interest and penalty was set aside. Revenue has filed the present appeal with the submission that the entire duty confirmed by the original authority may be upheld. 3. We have heard Shri R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of bought out items sold from their head office. But he disallowed the deduction of profit element on such bought out items. In the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has further allowed deduction to the extent of the profit element on the manufactured goods as well as bought out goods, i.e., he has allowed the deduction on account of profit element in respect of trading act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice. In terms of provision of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, allowing such deduction is fully justified. The basis for such deduction has also been spelt out in the impugned order. Accordingly, we find that no justification in interfering with the impugned order and the same is upheld. 5. In view of the above, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
