TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect invoice/ transaction details, the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted. There is no legal requirement that any bought out items are to be considered only on cost basis. The Revenue also did not support such plea with any legal basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 2062 of 2010 - Final Order No. 55210/2016 - Dated:- 23-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 21/04/2010 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The respondents are engaged in the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r head office by combining the price of other parts of fuse switch unit which were purchased from open market and were sent by the supplier directly to consignees. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that the appellant were required to pay duty on metallic not on stock transfer price but on the contract price or the price shown in the commercial invoice less the cost of bought out components. By not doing so they have paid less duty on metallic whereas they have sold it at higher price and hence there is short payment of duty amounting to ₹ 31,11,864/- during the period October 2005 to March 2008. I find that the appellant has not disputed the fact of sale of goods comprising of 3 components at consolidated value shown in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both and therefore total profit element in respect of all the activities has been reflected in the balance sheet. I thus hold that the deduction claimed by the appellant on account of profit element in respect of trading activity in respect of insulator lightening arrester is required to be given from the assessable value as contended by the appellant in para 11 (x) 11 (xi) and accordingly demand of duty is reduced to ₹ 17,93,333/- from ₹ 31,11,864/-. Since the appellant has already paid central excise duty amounting to ₹ 31,11,864/-, the excess amount of duty paid comes to ₹ 13,18,531/- which is consequentially refundable to them. Held accordingly . 3. We find that in the grounds of appeal Revenue contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
