TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, VADODARA [ 2018 (10) TMI 2005 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein herein the similar issue has been decided in favour of the appellant and accepted by the Revenue. Thus, 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 - demand set aside - appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR AND HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. C.L.MAHAR APPEARANCE: For the Appellant : None appeared Ffor the Respondent : Shri G. Kirupanandan, Assistant Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier period. 3. On the other hand, Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue to be decided in these appeals is that whether the cost of empty cylinders supplied by the customers is includible in the assessable value of appellant s final product i.e. Liquid Sulphur Dioxide. This issue is no longer res- integra particularly in the appellant s own case as this Tribunal has decided the issue in their favour vide Final Order No. A/12250/2018 dated 18.10.2018 wherein the Tribunal has passed the following order :- The issue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese proposals. In the result, there is also a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we note that a similar question was considered by this Tribunal for a post - 01.07.2000 period in the case of Grasim Industries v. CCE, Indore - 2004 (164) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. Del.). In that case, the excisable commodity was liquid chlorine which was sold by the assessee in tonners supplied by buyers. The buyers were not related to the assessee, nor had the Revenue a case that the price was not the sole consideration for the sale. On these facts, no amount attributable to the value of the tonners was held to be includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. We have not found an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
