9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. - Appeal No. E/1334/2010 - A/87980/2018 - Dated:- 26-11-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) None (Adjn Request) for Appellant Shri Anil Choudhary, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the appellant despite notice. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/203/RGD/2010 dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods namely, Aniline and Para Nitro Toluene falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR and perused the records. 6. We find that the issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Ltd. (supra). Their Lordships after analyzing the issue at length observed as follows:- 9. Ultimately it was agreed that M/s. Visakhapatnam will surrender its Advance Licences and in lieu thereof the Respondents get the Advance Intermediate Licences. Thus, without the Advance Licences of M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, being made available to the Respondents, the prices would have been as were quoted earlier. It is only because of the Advance Licences being surrendered by M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and in lieu thereof Advance Intermediate Licences being made available to the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t where parties take advantage of policies of the Government and the benefits flowing therefrom, then such benefit cannot be said to be an additional consideration . 10. The question then arises as to how the additional consideration is to be computed. In this case the benefit accrued to the Respondents is clearly ascertainable by virtue of the two letters of the Respondents. Had this additional benefit not flown to the Respondents, they would have sold the items as per their offer dated 9th September 1992. As the additional consideration was to flow to them, they have sold at the rates mentioned in the letter of 2nd March 1993. The additional consideration is the difference in prices between these two. The Commissioner had t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
