Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Bhopal vs M/S Universal Cables Ltd on 25 June, 2013

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.

Principal Bench, New Delhi



COURT NO. II



DATE OF HEARING : 25/06/13.



Excise Appeal No. 3549 of 2005



[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 3/CE/BPL/2005 dated 28/07/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal.]



CCE, Bhopal                                                               Appellant                                   



	Versus



M/s Universal Cables Ltd.                                         Respondent



Appearance



Shri V.P. Batra, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the appellant.



None  for the Respondent.





CORAM:   Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member 

       Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 

       

       

       Final Order No.    56847/2013 Dated : 25/06/2013



ORDER

Per. D.N. Panda :-

Revenue is in appeal being aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) holding that a small quantity sold at a higher price shall not be the basis to disturb the assessable value of the stock transfers made to depot of the appellant.

2. None present for the respondent nor there is any adjournment application.

3. Reading of para 2 of adjudication order throws light that the clearance made during August 1996 and September 1996 was subject matter of adjudication in respect of the goods transferred to depot. While clearances made at a higher price in respect of non-transfers to depots and such factory gate price remained un-rebutted, the respondent transferring goods to its depot at a lesser price cannot take advantage of lesser price. It is made clear that quantum of the clearances does not determine the price whereas prices is deceive to determine assessable value. Therefore, the observation of learned Adjudicating Authority in para 7 does not warrant disturbance. Accordingly, that order is to be maintained setting aside the appellate order.

4. Consequently adjudication order is upheld and Revenue appeal is allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member PK ??

??

??

??

2

EX/3549 of 2005