TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/CE/APPEAL/JAL/09 dated, February 26, 2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar and also for stay on their recovery till the disposal of the appeals. 2. The facts leading to these appeals and stay applications are in brief, as under :- 2.1 The appellant are manufacturers of pressure cookers of Aluminium and parts thereof chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading 7615.20, 761519.20, 7615.10, 7615.90, 7623.90 and 732393.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute in this case pertains to the valuation of the parts of the pressure cookers during the period from October 2006 to March 2007. While the pressure cookers, for the purpose of determining assessable value, are covered by the pro visions of Section 4A of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../JAL/09, dated, 26-02-2009 upheld Joint Commissioner's orders. It is against these orders that these two appeals alongwith the stay applications have been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 3.1 Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the pressure cookers and parts thereof manufactured by the appellant are transferred on payment of duty to their twenty five depots situated all over India for sale to dealers and other buyers, that the appellant is required Under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to print Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for both the pressure cookers, as well as pressure cooker parts, that while the press....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) had produced the factory invoices under which the pressure cooker parts were cleared to depots, as well as the depot invoices under which the same were sold from the depots to the dealers and after verification of random invoices, the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded in the proceedings that the factory invoices were showing clearance at MRP less abatement and the depot invoices were showing discount of 35% and sales tax of 12.5%, that the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order upholding the Joint Commissioner's order is based on the report dated 24-2-09 sent by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent whose copy was not given to the appellant and thus an adverse order has been passed against the appellant without giving them the copy of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hts and Measures Act and MRP in respect of the same is required to be declared, are not covered by any notification issued under Section 4A and accordingly the assessable value in respect of pressure cooker parts is required to be determined on the basis of a transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant removed the pressure cooker parts to their depots and the same are sold from their depots and at the time of removal from factory, the duty has been paid on price equal to MRP less 35%. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal has recorded that at the time of personal hearing, the appellant produced copies of the invoices from the factory to the depot showing clearances at MRP with 35% abatemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s report dated 24-2-09, the discounts passed on by the depots to the dealers vary from dealer to dealer and as such, it cannot be said that the appellant has passed on the same discounts to the ultimate customers for which the abatement had been claimed from the assessable value while clearing the goods from their factory and on this basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) has concluded that the appellant have not passed on the same discounts to the ultimate customers for which the abatement was claimed from the assessable value. But the appellate order is silent as to on an average how much discount was given and whether the discount plus sales tax was less than the abatement of 35% claimed from the MRP. Since, the MRP includes the element of s....