9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The issue involved in all the said appeals is the same and arising out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). As such, a common order is being passed. 2. The appellants herein are manufacturers of electric wires and cables. They have entered into contracts with their customers for supply of the said items vide v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them in their price lists. 3. Appearing for the appellants, Shri D.B. Desai, learned Consultant submits that the issue is no more res integra and has been decided by the Tribunal in the appellants' own case vide number of decisions. Drawing attention of the Bench to one such Order Nos. 1213-1247/97-A dated 30-6-1997 passed in the appellants' own case against Order-in-Appeal No. 91-121/JSR/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri S.N. Ghosh, learned J.D.R. submits that the issue is now decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dye-ichi Karkaria v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 676 wherein it has been held that the Modvat credit does not, ipso facto, lowers the assessable value in terms of the provisions of Section 4 (1)(a). He, further, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that in one of the Orders dated 30-6-1997, the order impugned passed by the same Commissioner (Appeals) is almost identical to the order impugned before us. We also observe that the ratio as laid down in the Larger Bench decision in the case of Dai-ichi Karkaria (supra) is not in conflict with the ratio laid down in the appellants' own cases referred supra. Accordingly, we do not find any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
