Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 32 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - valuation - undervaluation of compound of automatic chemicals dIspatched to contract manufacturers during the period January 1995 to April 2000 - understating overheads, labour charges and profit margin as the final products manufactured by contract manufacturer’s were sold in entirety to respondent - Whether the respondent has short paid the duty on the various goods cleared by them to their contract manufacturers? - Held that: - learned Counsel for the respondent was correct in pointing it to us that the self same issue of the same respondent is decided by the bench for the subsequent period that is clearances effected from May 2000 to March 2003 in the case Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Versus Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 636 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], where it was held that no evidence is brought on record either in form of statements or contracts which would indicate that the prices charged by the respondent for the aromatic compounds were influenced in any way or that they were abysmally low - Since the self same issue has already been decided by the bench for the subsequent period and for the earlier period, the adjudicating authority by an order dated 31.3.2000 has held the same we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the revenue. As an identical issue for the subsequent period in respect of the very same respondent held in their favour, respectfully following the same, we reject the appeal filed by the revenue - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.
|