9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the appellant. Heard the learned AR for the Revenue. 2. This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. Th- I/RKS/09/2011 dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Viscose Rayon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te quantity of goods' sold has not been elaborated in the order of the adjudicating authority while finalization of the assessment. Hence, the same is bad in law. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to arrive at the correct normal transaction value after due verification of the records. Hence, the present appeal. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were sold from the depots. Therefore, resorting to Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the value was determined on the basis of the greatest aggregate quantity of goods sold i.e. the normal transaction value of the goods and adopted the same for finalization of the assessment. The grievance of the Revenue is that even though assessment was made final by the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority, we do not see merit in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) doubting the normal transaction value calculated as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 adopting the procedure laid down in Board's Circular dated 27.12.2004. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
