9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on higher value i.e. MRP less abatement @35% of the MRP. There are no merit in the impugned orders - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/55536/2013, E/60664-60665/2017 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60894-60896/2021 - Dated:- 27-8-2021 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Mr. Amandeep Kumar, ARs ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders. As all the appeals are having common issue, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of pressure cookers and parts thereof. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the Revenue is that abatement of 35% claimed by the appellant is not available in respect of transfer of pressure cookers parts to their other sister units in as much as the same is not for retail sale. Hence, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of various show cause notices, which were converted into the impugned demand as per the impugned orders along with interest and by imposing penalty on the appellant. Against the said orders, the appellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel Sh. Prakash Shah, advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the dispute is in relation to pressure cookers parts only. Pressure cookers parts are not notified items in terms of Section 4A of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own which is not allowed under law. Initially, the deduction was allowed provisionally but after finalization these parts cleared to sister units are not for retail sale and are only for manufacture of final product i.e. pressure cooker which is entitled for abatement in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. She further submits that the Revenue neutrality is not applicable in this case as the decision in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd vs. Commissioner of CE, New Delhi 2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tri. LB). She also submits that penalty is also imposable on the appellant. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that facts are not in dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
