TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal filed by the assessee is against an order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai-34, upholding an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chengalpet Division, Chennai-45, confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,75,000/- in respect of bought-out items classified under S.H. 8431.00 of the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....their factory at Maraimalai Nagar (Tamilnadu) were removed, on payment of duty, to the Kanjikode premises of the customer. The bought-out items were directly brought to the said premises. Some of these items were assembled into 'copra handling system' and the remaining items were used for 'oil mill modification' at the customer's premises. The entire work was covered by the aforesaid contract. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... numerous grounds. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chengalpet Division, held against them and his decision was partly sustained by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. In the present appeal, the main objection raised by the assessee is that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to demand duty on the product which emerged at the customer's premise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld to be representing financial flow-back to the assessee from the customer, was not included in the assessable value. Yet another part of the demand is based on the 'CKD' concept. At the end of the story, the entire demand of duty is on the product contracted between the assessee and the Kanjikode party. Undisputedly, this product emerged in the premises of the customer at Kanjikode. The demand o....