TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards other goods, since no comparable package of the goods which was supplied in the service division are available, therefore, the valuation of the goods was correctly done by the respondent under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of Revenue. - E/2225/06, E/CO/427/06 - A/85783-85784/17/EB - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri S.V. Nair, AC (AR), for Appellant Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for Respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pesticides. The activity of manufacturing involved process of dilution of duty paid pesticid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking reference of this Tribunal s order dated 8.7.2002 in Appeal No. E./2296/01-Bom held that the activity before 23.7.1996 did not amount to manufacture. In the de novo adjudication, by the impugned order dated 29.11.2005, the learned Commissioner dropped the proceedings holding that the value of goods removed to service centre was correctly determined under rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 for the period 27.3.1996 to November, 1998. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue filed this appeal. 2. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that the respondents themselves accepted the differential duty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolone Cake - 0.005% is in the same packing, therefore, the price of comparable goods is available. However, the respondent had admittedly paid the duty on the said product, we also upheld the demand of duty paid on the product namely, Bromadiolone Cake - 0.005%. 5. As regards other goods, since no comparable package of the goods which was supplied in the service division are available, therefore, the valuation of the goods was correctly done by the respondent under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The learned Commissioner in de novo adjudication, on the valuation aspect, given the detail findings after considering the Ministry s letter dated 8.8.1975 and also various legal provisions of Section 4, Rule 6(b)(ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
