9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR for the appellant Per: Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) There are three departmental appeals filed against Order-in-Appeal No. PD/114 TO 116/Th-I/2003 dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai VI. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. M/s Maharashtra Control Panel P. Ltd., Thane (assessee in short) are manufacturers of elect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of Rs.3,83,840 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each of Shri Digvijay Shah and Shri Mayur Shah Directors of the assessee company, apart from imposing a penalty equal to duty on the appellant company. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondent assessee, the appeal was allowed by the Commissioner vide the impugned order and the department is in appeal against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the stores in good condition. In view of the above, the ratio of the Escorts JCB case and Associated Strips Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2002 (49) RLT 506 relied upon by the lower appellate authority are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore said order in appeal is incorrect and bad in law. 4. None appeared for the respondent. However they had filed a statement of cro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place at the buyer's premises. As observed by the lower appellate authority, the contract price was on ex works basis and the actual cost of transportation was to be reimbursed by the buyer to the assessee. Thus the contracted price for sale is at the place of manufacture i.e. ex works as is evident from the letter of the buyer MSEB while accepting the tender given by the respondent assessee who i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
