2008 (7) TMI 647

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)].  - This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2001 dated 16-1-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) vacated a demand of Rs. 51,810/- raised on M/s. VRW Refractories (Respondents) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on them. 2. Facts in brief are....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellate Commissioner. Another ground is raised that the bonus received was an additional consideration for the excisable goods cleared. 4. The lower appellate authority observed that it was incorrect on the part of the original authority to have not granted relief to the respondents when duty was demanded for bonus received. In any case, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e time of removal. We, therefore, feel that there was no justification for treating the bonus amount as part of the price of the goods and demanding duty on that basis. The action is also patently unjust as it has been done without giving abatement for the penalties. Accordingly, the demand is set aside." A decision of this Bench in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore [2007 (216) E.L.T. 77 (....