2004 (3) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich is impugned before us. 2. The appellants manufacture stainless steel flats (SS flats). The appellants cleared the said product viz. SS flats to several independent customers as well as to 8 declared consignment agents (C.As.). The duty has been paid on the basis of normal price, declared under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Central Excise Rules). Out of the 8 consignments agents located at three different places in respect of certain consignments cleared to one C.A., namely, M/s. Ram Kumar, Kishan Kumar (RK, KK) during the period of 5 months (Feb., 1997 to June, 1997), it was revealed, that the appellants realised additional consideration over and above the declared price, covering the sale of 4841.495 MTs of SS fla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt agent during the period outside the period covered in the demand notice. It is their defence that, the quantity of S.S. flats, transferred to M/s. RKKK, was subsequently sent by the said M/s. RKKK to independent job workers, for their conversion into patta/pattis and the sale proceeds of patta/pattis was repatriated by M/s. RKKK to the appellant which happened to be at the rate of Rs. 60 per kg. (approx.). The sale proceeds relate to the sale of patta/pattis and the allegation that the S.S. flats were sold at a price of around Rs. 60 per kg. is not correct. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We note that the basic issue is, as to whether or not, the differential price on which duty has been demanded, pertains to the sale of S.S. patta/p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to have been enclosed with RT-12 return and that is how the demand notice came to be issued. The furnished work sheet is only for further amplification of the point that the sale proceeds which have been realised from the consignment agent namely, M/s. RKKK in respect of the said quantity relates to the sale proceeds of patta/pattis, and not of S.S. flats. Therefore, we are satisfied that, there is no excess payment received by the appellant in respect of sale of SS flats effected through M/s. RKKK during the relevant period, over and above, the price declared by the appellant. Therefore, grounds of duty demand and consequential imposition of penalty do not survive. 10. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and the impugned order of the Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X