9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, ld. Advocate, appearing for the applicants states that the applicants have cleared the impugned goods from the factory gate as well as from depots. The impugned demand is in respect of some of the depot sales. He states that whenever there was price decrease on account of reduction in the base price of aluminium, the departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of TATA Engineering and Locomotive v. CCE, Pune - 2005 (185) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Del.). 2. Heard the ld. JCDR, Shri V.V. Hariharan. He fairly agrees that the nearest ascertainable time would be 9-5-05 in respect of the above example and not 27-4-05. He also states that there is no calculation available to show what would be the duty liability if the nearest time is taken into account for computing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the requirement of Rule 7 will be satisfied if the value prevailing at the depot on 9-5-05 is taken into account rather than the value prevailing on 27-4-05, since the date 9-5-05 is closer to the date of removal which is 6-5-09. The demand against the applicants has been apparently made taking only higher values into account instead of taking the value prevailing at the time nearest to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
