2018 (2) TMI 637

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against order-in-appeal No. RKR(88) 157/08 dated 05.03.2008. Period of dispute is December, 2002 to July, 2005. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of M.S. Pipes which attracts central excise duty.  The appellant is jobworker who receive raw materials free of cost from its principal and a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecords of the case carefully. The appellants manufacture pipes. The duty paid on inputs is taken as Cenvat credit. When they clear the final products, they clear partly on payment of duty and the rest without payment of duty as a result of exemption Notification. They are required to pay 8% of the total price of the final products in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, when they ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t be much different from the value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. Moreover, the certificate of Cost Accountant was produced before the Original Authority giving the bifurcation. Hence, charging of 8% on the transportation cost and cost of jointing, laying and commissioning cannot be justified at all in terms of Central Excise law. The demands made on are not sustainable. Hence, we all .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X