2012 (10) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this case are as follows :- 2.1 The appellant M/s. XAL Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd., (assessee in short) are manufacturers of goods falling under Chapter 84 and 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant/assessee manufactured machinery falling under both the Chapters exclusively for M/s. Cipla Ltd., and from M/s. Cipla Ltd. the appellant obtained advances for the manufacture of the goods. The department was of the view that the advances were interest free and, therefore, notional interest on such advances should be added to the transaction value of the goods and excise duty should be levied on such value and accordingly, issued a notice dated 26-4-2001 demanding differential duty of excise amounting to Rs. 15,35,783.38 for the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... authority confirmed the duty demand amounting to Rs. 13,17,479/- by inferring that the appellant's receipt of advance from Cipla influenced the price of the goods supplied and, therefore, the transaction value cannot be accepted as such. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest on the duty confirmed under Section 11AB and also imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The appellants are before us against the impugned order. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no finding of the adjudicating authority that the price was influenced by the advances received from the customer and their contention in this regard is supported by the Chartered Accountant. In a number of judi....