Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle products in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 November, 2011Matching Fragments
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV Respondent Appearance: Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate, for appellant Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President and Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 29.11.2011 Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 ORDER NO Per: Sahab Singh
This is an appeal filed by M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. against order-in-appeal No. BR/33/MIV/06 dated 30.3.2006.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapters 17, 18 & 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of checking of the records for the period November 1994 to September 1996, it was observed that the appellant was charging less price for clearances made to their depots located at different places as compared to the price charged for clearances made ex-factory to the dealers in Mumbai. According to the proviso (1) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, where the goods are assessable on ad valorem basis, the normal price at which assessed goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal would be the assessable value. Therefore, the department took a view that the normal price ascertainable at the factory gate would be applicable to the stock transfer and such ex-factory sales to the dealers should be the genuine transaction at a fully commercial price. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding differential duty of Rs.1,56,11,459/- for the period November 1994 to September 1996. These show cause notices were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand. The appellant went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. Hence the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal.