2016 (10) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent ORDER Per M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. PI/228/05 dated 02.05.2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the period 01.02.1997 to 30.06.2000 appellant was held to have undervalued the goods manufactured and cleared by them on payment of central excise duty. It is the case of the revenue that appellant had billed separately .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , similar issue was raised by the revenue and in an adjudication proceeding against the competitors and as per his information, this adjudication order is not contested by the revenue. He would submit that the amount collected for installation are post manufacturing expenses and not to be included in the assessable value is the law decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oxygen 1988 (36 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... harges are only in respect of the installation undertaken by the appellant in their factory premises. We also note that the lower authorities have categorically recorded that FRP bodies which are cleared from the factory premises are done so discharging appropriate central excise duty. On a specific query from the bench, as to whether there was any difference between the assessable value of FRP bo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X