9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessable value of final product or not under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Shri Saurabh Dixit, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted a synopsis wherein he submitted that the identical issue has been decided finally in the appellant's own case vide Final order No. A/12250/2018 dated 18.10.2018 by this Tribunal wherein the appeal was allowed holding that the value of empty cylinders owned by the buyers is not includible in the assessable value of Sulphur Dioxide in hands of the appellant. It was also submitted that the issue is no more res - integra in as much as the identical issue stands decided in following cases:- * SRF Ltd - 2016 (335) ELT 195 (SC) * Innovative Tech Pack Ltd. 2017 (358) ELT 409 (Tri. Chand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Tribunal vide order No. A/1382/WZB/AHD/2012 dated 04.09.2012, wherein the similar issue has been decided in favour of the appellant and accepted by the Revenue. The said decision is reproduced below:- "2. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding non-inclusion of the value of the packaging material i.e. cylinders received from the purchaser of the appellants final product. We find that identical issue has been decided finally by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of TCP Limited Vs CCE Madurai 2008 (227) ELT 109 (Tri-Chennai), the ratio of which we respectfully produce below:- "The appellants are manufacturers of liquid Sulphur dioxide and other chemicals. During the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is allowed." 3. It can be seen from the above reproduction that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee and following the same, we hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal is allowed. 3. In view of the above decision, the appeal is allowed." 4.1 We also observed that following this Tribunal order in the appellant's case for the different period, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-In-Appeal No. SRP/502/VDR-I/2003 dated 27.02.2013 allowed their appeal by setting aside the OIO in that case. The present issue is also covered by the decision cited by the appellant in their synopsis. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside, appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
