9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.K. Deb, Asstt. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)]. - The present two appeals are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 96 & 97-CE/NOIDA/2007, dated 29-8-2007 and therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 13/Joint Commissioner/2005, dated 28-11-2005, wherein the Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. 4. The appellant preferred an appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal through Order-in-Appeal No. 148/2006, dated 8-12-2006. The appellant preferred appeal before this Tribunal against said Order-in-Appeal dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) rejected both the appeals. Challenging the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Heard the learned counsel, who has submitted that there is no dispute in the show cause notice that the goods were included in the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. There is no dispute in the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise Act, 1944 such value shall be deemed to be retail sale price, declared on such goods less, such amount of abatement from such retail prices as Central Government may allow by notification in the Official Gazette. We find that there are no allegations in the show cause notices that the consideration price received was more than the MRP declared on the packing or the abatement availed wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
