Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 11 October, 2006
In the Morinda Co-op. Sugar case, this Tribunal held in favour of the assessee upon a specific noting that sale price was a commercial price.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Documents citing
M/S. Morinda Co-Op. Sugar Mills vs Cce, Chandigarh on 25 June, 2001
Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 2 February, 2005
2. Shri Vikrant Kackria, learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants are member of U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation; that they had cleared the impugned goods to M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 11.28 per B.L.; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order had, enhanced the assessable value to Rs. 20.30 per B. L., the rate at which M/s. Oudh Sugar Ltd. had sold ethyl alcohol denatured during the material period; that the Adjudicating Authority has not given any reason for not considering the price charged by them to be the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act; that merely because the prices are fixed by the Federation, it cannot be a ground to allege that the price charged by them is not the normal price; that their customers Vam Organic Chemicals are not their related person and as such the price at which the goods have been sold to them has to be taken for assessment purpose; that the Commissioner has given the finding that M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals are special and favoured buyer which is wrong as there was no such allegation in the show cause notice; that further they had sold the quantity of 3,57,000 litres, whereas M/s. Oudh Sugar had sold only a small quantity of 20,000 litres. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Morinda Co-Operative Sugar Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (132) E.L.T. 27 (Tri)] wherein it has been held that the price of comparable goods is applicable only if the sale is not to an independent buyer and price is not the only consideration for sale.
Venus Sugar Ltd vs C.C.E. Meerut Ii on 24 December, 2014
6. The basis of duty demand is that when the prevailing price of the molasses was at Rs. 100 per metric tone, the appellant have sold the molasses at much reduced price of Rs. 10 per metric tonne and have paid duty on this basis for which there is no justification. We find that it is not disputed that during the period of dispute there was control of the State Excise Authorities over the production storage and sale of molasses and that sale of molasses, in question, at reduced price was under intimation to the State Excise Commissioner. It is seen that in the sale invoices of the molasses, the same has been mentioned as of second grade. We also find that the Tribunal in the case of Morinda Co-op Sugar Mills Vs. CCE-Chandigarh reported in 2001 (132) ELT 27 (Tri-Delhi) has held that the price of comparable goods would be applicable only if the sale was not to an independent buyer and the price was not only consideration for sale. In this case, there is neither allegation nor there is any evidence that the sale of the molasses was not to independent buyers and that the price was not the sole consideration of sale. When it is not disputed that the sale was to independent buyers and price was the only consideration for sale and was not influenced by any other consideration, in our view, there would be no justification for rejecting the sale price and adopting the comparable price at which the molasses was being sold by other manufacturers as the assessable value. Moreover, when the sale invoices show the molasses sold on of second quality, if the Department alleges that it was of first quality, and therefore, must have been sold at much higher price, it is for the Department to produce evidence in this regard, which has not been done.
Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 9 October, 2001
4. On hearing both sides and noting that the Tribunal in the case of Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad 2001 (44) RLT 810, it has been held that ex-factory prices is required to be adopted unless it is established that it is manipulated price and also noting the case of Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (45) RLT 613 wherein it has been held that transaction value is acceptable and in such a situation the sale price of comparable goods is not to be adopted, we waive pre-deposit requirement and remand the case for decision on merits to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard, without insisting on pre-deposit.
Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 4 December, 2001
2. On hearing both sides and noting that the Tribunal in the case of Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad [2001 (44) RLT 810], has held that ex-factory prices is required to be adopted unless it is established that it is manipulated price and also noting the case of Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (45) RLT 613] wherein it has been held that transaction value is acceptable and in such a situation the sale price of comparable goods is not to be adopted, we waive pre-deposit requirement and remand the case for decision on merits to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall pass fresh orders after extending a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard, without insisting on pre-deposit.
1