TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Mumbai [2016 (6) TMI 467 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that value of machine bodies supplied by the principle manufacturer need not to be added or same should not be levied with excise duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of apppellant. - MISC Application No.: E/MISC/26235/2013, Appeal(s) Involved: E/567/2007-DB - Final Order No. 20335/2018 - Dated:- 2-3-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri T IV. Ajayan, Advocate, Chander Kumar And Associate, For The Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For The Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt 25/05/2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the demand was dropped by the same authority in respect of TAFE The Additional Commissioner vide order No.28/12/2005 has dropped the proceedings initiated in the show-cause notice and the same was accepted by the Department on 01/08/2006 in file No. lV/03/287/2006Review. He further submitted that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the raw material received by the appellant from its customers was under Rule 57F(4) and Rule 57AC(5)(a)-Challans and the Customers supplying the raw materials have availed modvat/CENVAT credit on such materials and had supplied the said materials free of cost to the appellant for carrying out further processing of raw material for the manufacture of final product. He further submitted that once th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 205) ELT 370 (Tri. Bang.)] iii. Orissa Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhubaneshwar-ll [2007(220) ELT 236 (Tri. Kolkata)] iv. M.Tex D.K. Processors Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2001(136) ELT 73 (Tri. Del.)] v. CCE, Jaipur vs. D K. Processors (P) Ltd. [2000(122) ELT 802 (Tri.)] vi. vako Seals Pvt. Ltd, vs. CCE, Mumbai-V [2016(344) ELT 482 (Tri. Mum.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly held that the transaction between the appellant and his raw material supplier attracts Rule 6 of the said Valuation Rules, 2000. The learned AR referred to the explanation 1 attached to the Rule and also relied upon the following decisions: - i. Lear Auto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
