2016 (8) TMI 940

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Praveen Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of domestic kitchen appliances falling under CTH 8509 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The goods manufactu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion value claiming that the MRP assessment will not be applicable to the accessories since they do not contain self-contained electric motor. The Department investigated and came to the conclusion that the food processor basic units as well as accessories are to be assessed together under MRP and demanded differential duty to the extent of Rs. 29,45,585/-. The Original Authority, vide his order da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....harma, ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Neha Garg, ld. DR for the respondent/Department. 4. There is no dispute that MRP based assessment notified under Section 4 A through notification no.13/2002-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2002 covers, food processors under Sl.No.72 described as Electro Mechanical Domestic Appliances with self contained Electric Motor . The controversy in the present case i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o basic unit and other essential parts described as optional accessories and packed in separate boxes and marked with separate MRPs and cleared in equal numbers, has been done with the purpose of wrongly claiming lower rates of excise duty under Section 4 for the accessories. Accordingly, we take a view that the food processor basic unit along with the accessories are to be assessed together as el....