2015 (5) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Central Excise Tariff Act respectively. The aforesaid goods TCY and TCB are manufactured by the appellant at its Goregaon factory. The products so manufactured are sold by the appellant at the factory gate as well as removed for captive consumption to its another factory at Tarapur. At Tarapur factory, the said yarn are utilised for manufacturing final products. 2. The dispute has arisen in respect of the valuation of the TCY which are removed for captive consumption and to be used at Tarapur factory of the respondent. 3. The appellant has been filing the price list proforma under Section 4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') declaring the wholesale price of TCY for such goods by showing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The second show cause notice was issued on 03.03.2001 which was for the period from February, 1996, to June, 2000. Both these notices resulted in confirmation of the demands mentioned in the show cause notices as well as imposition of penalties upon the appellant. The appellant filed appeal against the orders passed by the Commissioner. However, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') has dismissed this appeal by the common judgment dated 01.10.2004. It is against this judgment, present appeal is preferred by the appellant. 5. After going through the material on record as well as the orders of the Commissioner and the CESTAT, we find that findings of facts are recorded by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i). (ii) Both the goods fall under the same sub-heading of the tariff entry as both are admittedly TCY. (iii) The price list which was filed by the appellant in the year 1994, and thereafter repeatedly, was accepted by the Central Excise Department after scrutiny and this gave a reasonable impression in the mind of the appellant that the price declarations filed by the appellant was correct. (iv) The appellant could not have taken any undue advantage, in any case, by filing declaration under Rule 6(b)(i) instead of Rule 6(b)(ii) inasmuch as even if there was higher duty payable in terms of declaration under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules, the appellant was entitled to take credit thereof i....