9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, the learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate pointed out several mistakes, which according to the appellants, are mistakes apparent on the face of the record. We shall deal with each of them seriatum and give our findings. (1) In para 10 of the Final Order, the Tribunal has confirmed the demand for duty of Rs. 1,85,916/- in respect of excess freight collected. This decision is contrary to the ratio laid by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Baroda Electric Meter - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13. (S.C.). Therefore, the following prayer is made to modify the Final Order by - (a) setting aside the demand in view of the ratio of the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nguishable. Hence, the ratio of the said case will not be applicable. We find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, as far as this point is concerned, the prayer of the appellant is rejected. (2) The advocate stated that in para 12 of the impugned order, there is a typographical error. It was stated that the word 'not' has been omitted after the word 'are' in the following sentence - "The appellants have cited large number of case laws to hold that they are includible in the assessable value." Finding : The prayer of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order passed by learned Commissioner that there are sales to independent buyers at higher price. (b) In fact the demand as per Annexure 'C' to show cause notice is based on the sale price of M/s. TAPL, the dealer and not on the basis of any higher price in respect of sale to independent buyers. (c) It has been the contention of the appellant that in fact there was no such sale at higher price to buyers, which was not disputed by the departmental representative during the personal hearing. (d) It was vehemently contended that the difference in price to the dealer and price of the dealer to buyers which represents the profit to dealer is normal business profit. Hence the finding that the department should adopt the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there are buyers other than M/s. TAPL. In our order, we only stated the general proposition that if sales to independent buyers at a price higher than those charged to M/s. TAPL are available, those prices should be taken for calculation of duty. This is a general proposition of law. There is no mistake in this. We have also stated that if such price to independent buyer is not available, the price at which M/s. TAPL sold the goods to other buyers should be taken for calculation of duty. This is also in conformity with Central Excise Law. We have further stated, "On this basis, the differential duty has to be re-quantified. As it is not very clear as to how the Commissioner arrived at the differential duty of Rs. 10,80,114/- confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
