Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Escorts Mahle Ltd. [Alongwith Appeal ... on 17 December, 2004
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Common issue is involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being taken up together. Revenue filed these appeals against the order, in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent relying upon the decision in the case of Steel Complex Ltd., v. CCE., Calicut - 2004 (61) RLT 187 and held as under :
"The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Steel Complex Ltd. v. CCE Calicut Reported as 2004 (61) RLT 187 (CESTAT-Bon) wherein it has been held that the "Assessable value Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (DPEG) Rules, 2000 - Job Work - goods sold at factory to unrelated buyers as well as sent to job workers for further processing and sale - Ex-factory sale price and not value at 115% of production to be adopted for goods to job worker even after 1.7.2000 as manufacturer is making losses". Following the ratio of the judgment of CESTAT (Supra), I set aside the order in original.
The appeal is allowed".
2. The revenue filed these appeals only on the ground that the decision in the case of Steel Complex Ltd., is not accepted by the Revenue and they are contemplating the appeal against that decision .Revenue has not produced any order of the decision of the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, Appeals are dismissed.