Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Asian Peroxides Ltd vs Cce Guntur on 8 April, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/2/2002
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.80/2001(G)CE
dt. 18.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Asian Peroxides Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
CCE Guntur
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri J.Shankar Raman, Advocate Shri V.V.Hariharan, JCDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 8.4.2009 Date of decision : 8.4.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the applicability of ex-factory price of the appellants product for sales through depots prior to the amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 w.e.f 28.9.96.
2) On hearing both sides, we find that this issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled by the Tribunals order in Tata Pigments Ltd. Vs CCE Jamshedpur, 2001 (137) ELT 1212 (Tri.-Kolkata) holding that ex-factory price in respect of appellants products has to be applied in respect of sales made through depots for the period prior to 28.9.96 (although present appeal involves periods even subsequent to 28.9.96, since the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied correct legal position, the appellants are not aggrieved by his order for the period post-28.9.96). Following the Tribunals order cited (supra), we set aside the impugned order holding that appellants are required to pay additional duty in respect of sales made through depots at higher prices and remit the case for verification as to the availability of factory gate sale price and, if the same is available, it has to be made the basis even in respect of sales through consignment agents prior to 28.9.96.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 1 2