TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The brief facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are manufacturers of Concrete Sleepers classifiable under Chapter Heading 6807 and supplied to Indian Railways based on the contract entered into between the Railways and the respondents. A show cause notice dt. 4.10.95 was issued to the respondents demandi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court judgement in the case of CCE Vs Dai Ichi Karkaria - 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC) which is not applicable to the present case. In the present case, respondent is retaining an amount of Rs. 49.36 per sleeper. Assessee would have availed modvat credit had he availed the amount as credit even if the same is not includible in the assessable value of the sleeper. In this regard, assessee has not a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate authority also in the impugned order upheld the above order by relying this Bench decision on the identical issue in the case of CCE Coimbatore Vs Kottukulam Engineers vide Final order No.781 to 784/2002. We find that in the present case, the respondent has rightly discharged the excise duty as per contract price of Rs. 712.86 per sleeper which is a sale price. As per Section 4, the price....