2017 (6) TMI 807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of plastic moulding, falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants manufacture and clear part Nos.S.G.A. 3100026 (inter face barrier), S.G.A.3100027 (moving arm) and SGA 31101163 (isolating ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....department was of the view that comparable prices are available for these three products and therefore such prices have to be adopted to arrive at the assessable value. Show cause notices were issued alleging the same and after due process of law, the original authority confirmed the duty demand. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same. Hence this appeal. 3. The Learned AR Shri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f respondent, the appeal may be allowed. 4. None appeared on behalf of respondent even though notice was issued. Being old matter of the year 2007, the appeal is taken for disposal after hearing the department and on perusal of records. 5. On facts brought out, it is seen that Pallavaram unit of the appellant sold about 2% of the products cleared from Pondicherry unit, as spares at a higher ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es by the latter at much higher prices, the transaction value of the OE clearances is liable to be rejected and the Appellant liable to pay differential duty on the same price of the replacement spares sold by the Pallavaram Unit. It cannot be said that when the OE items were removed from the Appellant s premises, to their Pallavaram unit, it was all along know, ab initio, that the said items, or ....