9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the charges and the allegations are similar. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue is also similar in the circumstances. In the instant case the facts and dispute involved are similar to the case of M/S. RAVI KIRAN PLASTICS PVT. LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST., VADODARA [ 2014 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that the charges levelled against the manufacturers are not sustained. Consequently, no penalty was imposed on the appellant in that case. Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 946 of 2011 - A/12300/2021 - Dated:- 6-8-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. Uday Joshi, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions have been received by the appellant, and therefore, in this case also which involves similar controversy, no penalty should be imposed. He pointed out that the investigation in all these cases was common. The agreement of the appellant with various vendors including Mutual Industry was same as other. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice are also same. 3. Learned Authorized Representative relied on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise 2002 was imposed on the appellant. The demand confirmed against the supplier Mutual Industry has been settled under SVLDR Scheme. We find that the Show Cause Notice issued to Mutual Industry and appellant alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers on random basis and reporting to M/s. Symphony. (ii) That the purchase agreement does not provide the price of Air Cooler, however it is brought on records by investigation that apart from processing charges, cost of raw materials including that of bought out items and any other cost is charged on actual basis. (iii) That the appellant is not an independent manufacturer and does not have the right to decide the suppliers, rate and quantity of inputs. (iv) That the value indicated in invoice of appellant was influenced by the cost of manufacture which were controlled by M/s. Symphony as all the raw material/component were procured on the basis of terms and conditions including price, quality, quantity, etc. as agreed upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished products to a purchaser based upon the price agreed between them, the said transaction will be covered by Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Trying to bring such type of transactions under provisions of Rule 10A of Valuation Rules, is not in consonance with the settled law, even if the finished products are sold at higher price by the buyer. Consequently, the demand on manufacturer and penalty imposed on the appellant in the said case was set aside. We find that in the instant case the facts and dispute involved are similar to the case of Ravi Kiran Plastics (Supra). Even the investigation and the statements recorded are common. 6. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal passed in similar facts the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
