TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the rejection of refund applications filed by the appellants. The grounds taken for rejection are the same. Accordingly, the appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of 2 Wheelers. The present appeal is in respect of Scooters removed from the factory to the appellant's depot and sold therefrom. In terms of the 1996 amendment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory) sale prices of goods from the depots are not relevant for the purpose of assessment. 3. It is the contention of the appellant in these appeals that the refund claims were rejected on an erroneous appreciation of facts. It has been pointed out that the refund claim is not based on the subsequent sales prices of the scooters in question from the depots, but based on the depots sale prices at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price prevailing in the depot was lower than the assessable value adopted for the purpose of payment of duty. He submitted that the excess duty so paid was liable to be refunded to the appellant. In support of the proposition that the depots price on the date of removal of the goods from the factory is to constitute the basis for determination of assessable value, the learned Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted at the time of stock transfer from the factory was higher than the price prevailing on that date at the depot. The appellant is therefore, right in its contention that the refund claim is covered by the legal position stated in the Tribunal's decision in the case of Castrol India Ltd. Thus, the factual position noted in the impugned order-in-appeal is not correct. The refund claims are requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
