9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. Abhash Mishra, Advocate - for the assessee ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order in appeal No.BHO-EXCUS-002-APP-408-16-17 dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Raipur. 2. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Mild Steel Rectangular Bar, MS Flat, MS Octagonal Bar, MS Round etc. The goods m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction @ 110% of the CAS-4 value. On the above basis differential duty of Rs. 37,17,072/- was demanded alongwith interest and penalties. The original authority vide his order dated 30.11.2015 dropped such demand and when the issue was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) he also upheld the original order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. With this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the transaction value of goods cleared to independent buyers is in order. 7. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bombay Vs. Fiat India - 2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC) held that a bare reading of Valuation Rules does not give any indication that the adjudicating authority, while determining the value for duty of excisable goods, had to follow the rules sequentially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise duty.
9. After careful consideration of the record, we find that the respondent-assessee has, in fact, paid the duty on the basis of the transaction value of goods cleared to independent buyer. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned order which is sustained and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court). X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
