9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 997X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufacture final product for CEAT Ltd., Mumbai on job-work basis. The final products are not sold from the factory of the appellant but are transferred from the factory to the sales office/depot of the clearing and forwarding agent of CEAT viz. place from where the final products are sold. Under the provisions of Rule 4(1) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 the assessee/job worker is liable to pay excise duty on the assessable value of the excisable goods sold by the principal manufacturer. In the case of sale of final products in the replacement market, the final products which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t vide order dated 20.03.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the said appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order rejecting the request for provisional assessment is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the original authority has passed the order without issuing the show-cause notice thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the appellants are not able to determine the exact/correct assessable value of the final product sold/cleared to CEAT on account of variety of dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods cleared from M/s. CEAT India Ltd. at the time of removal as per the provisions of Rule 10A (ii) of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000. In support of his submission, the appellant has also relied upon the following decisions: a. Shakti Roofings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune reported at 2008 (226) E.L.T. 604 (Tri.-Mum.) b. Castrol India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad reported at 2016 (335) E.L.T. 169 (Tri.-Mum.) c. Finolex Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 2017 (349) E.L.T. 780 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
