9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the appellant despite notice. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/203/RGD/2010 dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods namely, "Aniline an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that the issue of 'addition of surrendered value of the advance license to the assessable value of manufactured goods sold' is no more res integr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Advance Licences of M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, being made available to the Respondents, the prices would have been as were quoted earlier. It is only because of the Advance Licences being surrendered by M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and in lieu thereof Advance Intermediate Licences being made available to the Respondents that the Respondents could offer lower prices. The surrendering of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licy had nothing to do with the arrangement/contract under which the Licences flowed from the buyer to the seller. At the costs of repetition it must be mentioned that had the Respondents had Advance Intermediate Licence on their own i.e. without M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant having to surrender its Licences for the purposes of the contract, then the reasoning of the Tribunal may have been correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they have sold at the rates mentioned in the letter of 2nd March 1993. The "additional consideration" is the difference in prices between these two. The Commissioner had thus correctly worked out this difference." 7. The said view was later followed in Indorama Synthetics' case (supra). Thus, following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, we do not find merit in the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
