TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE VERSUS M/S. ESSEL PROPACK LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 708 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that Tribunal found that during this period, there was a solitary sale transaction which was at ₹ 100 per k.g. in December, 1997 - In these circumstances, since that was the only comparable price available with the Tribunal, there is nothing wrong in adopting that so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up for disposal. 3. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/51 52/Th-I/10 dated 29/03/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, namely Polywool Yarn of different variety. During the relevant period, they have manufactured and cleared P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order they filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeals. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that even though the sale price was available for the same quality and comparable quantity of yarn sold by them, the appellant had wrongly adopted the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the goods under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1975 taking into consideration the value of the comparable goods sold by the Appellant. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Essel Propack Ltd (supra) has held as follows: 2. Under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules, the price of the comparable goods had to be adopted for the purpose of fixing the valuation. The Revenue took into consideration sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
