2004 (6) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes and fittings classifiable under Heading 3717.00. They were selling the said pipes and fittings from their factory gate as also from the depots. They filed two declarations for the said sale with their Jurisdictional Centra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the original adjudicating authority was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result of finalization of the provisional assessment demands were also raised by the Superintendent. 2. After hearing Shri Mayur Shroff, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant we find that in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), they ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., they are not now in a position to ask for the refund of higher duty paid for the sales at factory gate but the said fact would not stop them from claiming the correct assessable value for the depot sales. 3. We have heard Shri R.B. Pardeshi, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue who reiterates the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. After considering the submissions, we fi....