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, Indore vs M/S D&H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd on 1 August, 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 : 01/08/13.



Excise Appeal No. 3635 of 2005 



[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/284/2005 dated 29/08/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore.]



CCE, Indore                                                                Appellant                                   



	Versus



M/s D&H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd.                      Respondent



Appearance



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



Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate  for the Respondent.





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

       Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member 

       

       

       Final Order No.    57262/2013 Dated : 01/08/2013



ORDER

Per. D.N. Panda :-

The respondent says that the self same issue in the case of the respondent in appeal No. E/1380/2006 filed by Revenue was dismissed. It appears that the fact of printing diary and calendar was undertaken by the respondent and 50% of that cost thereof was recovered from the dealers when supplied to dealers not added to assessable value and rest of the 50% of the cost formed part of the assessable value. It is explained by the respondent that when the rest of the 50% cost was only borne by the buyers not relating to sale of goods that should not part of the assessable value.

2. Revenue supports adjudication.

3. When Revenue is unable to show depression to the assessable value of clearance by above methodology, there is no further scope to dilate the matter in absence of cogent evidence proving recovery of cost was disguised sale price of the excisable goods cleared.

4. Revenues appeal is dismissed.




 (Dictated and pronounced in open court)













(Rakesh Kumar)			                       (D.N. Panda)

Technical Member					Judicial Member 



PK











??



??



??



??









2

EX/1277 of 2005