1997 (12) TMI 197

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. -  The respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M. Ali, learned JDR. 2. The dispute arose in relation to the price list No. 472/88-89 effective from 10-11-1988 filed by the respondent, declaring the value of TV Model 555 NR as Rs. 4,900/- attracting con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uty of Rs. 2,000/- per set would be payable. Accordingly show cause notice dated 2-11-1989 was issued proposing to approve the price list with a direction that the duty of Rs. 2,000/- was payable. The notice also required the respondent to show cause as to why differential duty of Rs. 500/- per set on TV sets cleared during the period from 10-11-1988 to 28-2-1989 should not be recovered under Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een asked to furnish B2 bond. This order is now challenged by the department. 4. Going by the facts in the orders passed by the original authority and the Appellate authority, it is clear that the respondent had entered into a contract with the buyer for manufacture and sale of TV sets at Rs. 4,900/- per set besides Excise duty. Evidently, the respondent was required to provide cost data a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a case where the appellant was manufacturing and selling TV sets on contract. The department has on case that the price stipulated in the contract exceeded Rs. 5,000/-. Admittedly, the price stipulated was Rs. 4,900/-. The department did not go into the question whether this price was genuine or not, but instead, called for cost data and picked holes in the data so furnished. The appeal Memorand....