9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and fittings classifiable under Heading 3717.00. They were selling the said pipes and fittings from their factory gate as also from the depots. They filed two declarations for the said sale with their Jurisdictional Central Excise Office wherein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result of finalization of the provisional assessment demands were also raised by the Superintendent. 2. After hearing Shri Mayur Shroff, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant we find that in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), they were entitled to deduction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to ask for the refund of higher duty paid for the sales at factory gate but the said fact would not stop them from claiming the correct assessable value for the depot sales. 3. We have heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue who reiterates the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the appellant's claim de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand the same to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in the light of observation made by us above. We, however, make it clear that the issue of claiming deduction of the said amount from the factory gate sale price is not before us and is not a subject matter of the present appeal. As such, we are not passing any order on the same. The appellants have also clarified that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
