TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Tarun Gulati and Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Virender Choudhary, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 263/BBSR-I/04 dated 30-9-04 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar, confirming the Order-in-Original No. AC/CTC-DKL-II/CE/07/2003 dated 30-5-03 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Cuttack. The appellants are manufacturers of Partially oriented yarn (POY). According to the department, the appellants during the period of dispute from May, 1999 to August, 1999, cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-Appeal No. 263/BBSR-I/04, dated 30-9-2004. It is against this order that present appeal has been filed. 2.Heard both sides. 2.1 Shri Tarun Gulati and Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Advocates, learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that the POY, in question, in respect of which the duty has been demanded, had been manufactured for RIL on job work basis, that in respect of the goods manufactured on job work basis, the duty in accordance with the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ujjagar Prints others v. Union of India reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) was required to be paid on the deemed value of the goods at the factory gate of the Appellants and not on the basis of price at which the goods were sold by RIL from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of job-work goods, the owner's sale price is to be adopted only in the situation where the job-worker and the owner of the goods are related person, but there is no such allegation in this case. However, since in this case, the duty has not been paid on the assessable value determined on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Ujjgar Prints Others v. UOI (supra), but has been paid on the ex-factory price of the Appellant's customer - RIL, which is not correct, the mater has to be remanded for determination of correct assessable value. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for determining the assessable value in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
