TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total duty demand of Rs. 65,39,813/- was confirmed along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of equivalent amount of Rs. 65,39,813/- under Section 11AC and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q, Rule 9(2) and/or Rule 209 of the Central Excise, Rules, 1944 were also imposed. 2. The facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of acetylene gas falling under Chapter 2901.10. The appellant also manufacture the same product on job-work goods, arrived at the assessable value on the basis of sale price provided by their principal, M/s. BOC Ltd. and discharged the excise liability on the said value. Show cause notices dated 29/03/2000, 15/02/2001 and 31/07/2001 were issued where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hence price of one customer cannot be made applicable to other class of buyers. He relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Surindra Steel Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh - I 2003 (155) ELT 357 which has been upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court [2008 (266) ELT A182 (P&H)]. 4. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhu Desai, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that since the goods manufactured and supplied by the appellant on job-work basis and the goods manufactured and sold to independent customers are similar, therefore, the value of the goods sold to the independent buyers should be adopted in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;ble apex Court judgment in Ujagar Prints (supra). So long as this factual position is not in dispute, we find that adoption of the value by the appellant is absolutely legal and correct. 6. We do not agree with the Revenue's contention in applying the value of the comparable goods. It is the settled law that prices of different class of buyers can be different and the same is acceptable. We also find that the ratio of the Tribunal judgment in the case of Surindra Steel Rolling Mills (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below: "4. We have perused the records and have heard the learned SDR also. The present Appellants are merely carrying out job work on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ult of a gross misunderstanding of the principles of valuation laid down by the Apex Court in the Ujagar Prints case. These demands are not sustainable. 5. For the reasons stated above, the Orders impugned in these appeals are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants." 7. The above judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court which has held as under: "The following question of law was referred before the Hon'ble High Court: Whether the Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal of the party in view of Apex Court decision in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. under which the parties were required to include the cost of raw material plus job work charges plus ....