9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents are selling the goods in the market in the container of 1/4L, 1/2L, 1L, 5L capacity. In addition to the sale of the pesticides, they are also clearing in bulk quantity to their service division in the packing of 25L, 50L, 100L and 200L capacity. One item namely, Bromadiolone Cake - 0.005% is sold and cleared to service station in the same packing. The appellant in respect of clearance to their service division determined the value of the goods as per Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. A show-cause notice dated 19.3.1999 was issued to the respondent wherein it was contended that since the same goods were cleared to their service division, the price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of dropping the demand. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has not checked the correctness of the value adopted by the respondent to arrive at the conclusion that the duty was correctly paid as per the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii). The issue of limitation contested by the respondent before the adjudicating authority, but the same was not dealt with in the impugned order. Therefore, the order is not legal and correct. 3. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand considering the fact that the goods supplied to the service centre is not the same goods, which was sold in the market. The goods supplied to the service centre in 25, 50, 100 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done under rule 6(b)(i). As a result, the valuation was correctly done under Rule 6(b)(ii) on cost construction method. We also observe that right from the show-cause notice, there is no case of the department regarding quantification of the cost. The case of the department was only that the valuation is not governed by Rule 6(b)(ii) but the same will be governed in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. Therefore, now the department cannot raise the issue of correctness of the quantification of the value. 6. As per our above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable except to the extent of demand on one item namely, Bromadiolone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
