2007 (9) TMI 192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Agarwal partner of M/s. S.C. Products explained that earlier they were registered with the revenue authorities for manufacture of branded Gutka Pan Masala at D/23, Pratap Nagar and they have shifted recently at the place of visit, where the excise goods were found to be manufactured He also explained that M/s. S.C. Products is a partnership firm and the other partner is Ms. Meena Agarwal. During search, it was also found that one dummy trading firm in the name and style of M/s. Shyamji Traders was being run by Shri R.K. Agarwal. During verification of the trading firm, it was found that during the period March, 1993 to July, 1993, they had received branded gutka pan masala manufactured by M/s. S.C. Products. When the record of M/s. S.C. Pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e trading firm. The appellant also claimed that for arriving at the assessable value of the goods, sale price is to be taken as cum duty price and demand to be calculated after deducting excise duty from sale price as held in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Action Construction Equipment (P) Ltd. reported in, 2006 (201) E.L.T. 524 (S.C.) = 2006 (75) RLT 518. 5. The contention of revenue is that the excisable goods were being manufactured at a place which is not registered with the revenue authorities and a separate trading firm was also running from the same place. The contention is that on verification, it was found that the appellant had not paid duty in respect of goods supplied to trading firm. Therefore, the demand was rightly made. 6. ....