TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g recorded by the authorities below that the assessee was the real manufacturer and not M/s. Nestle. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 3969 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2015 - Mr. A.k. Sikri and Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Mr. Avtar Singh Chauhan, Adv., Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv., Ms. Shefali Sethi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing charged. Thereby, the respondent was not charging the normal market price from M/s. Nestle for supply of those chocolates. It resulted in issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.1995 followed by another Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.1995 covering different periods. The respondent was asked to show cause why differential duty as mentioned in the Show Cause Notice be not demanded from the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We also take the issue on merits and find that the Commissioner's reasoning to drop the show cause notice is correct in law. M/s. Nestle India Ltd. was supplying the raw material. They had given loan for purchase of machinery but it had not influenced the pricing and the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the assessee as an independent job worker. The value of the job worker alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
