2017 (2) TMI 1166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents are selling the goods in the market in the container of 1/4L, 1/2L, 1L, 5L capacity. In addition to the sale of the pesticides, they are also clearing in bulk quantity to their service division in the packing of 25L, 50L, 100L and 200L capacity. One item namely, Bromadiolone Cake - 0.005% is sold and cleared to service station in the same packing. The appellant in respect of clearance to their service division determined the value of the goods as per Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. A show-cause notice dated 19.3.1999 was issued to the respondent wherein it was contended that since the same goods were cleared to their service division, the price ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uestion of dropping the demand. He further submits that the adjudicating authority has not checked the correctness of the value adopted by the respondent to arrive at the conclusion that the duty was correctly paid as per the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii). The issue of limitation contested by the respondent before the adjudicating authority, but the same was not dealt with in the impugned order. Therefore, the order is not legal and correct. 3. Shri D.H. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand considering the fact that the goods supplied to the service centre is not the same goods, which was sold in the market. The goods supplied to the service centre in 25, 50, 100 ....