2017 (8) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew This appeal has been filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur against order-in-appeal no. SVS/141/NGP-II/2006 dated 31^st March, 2006. 2. The dispute pertains to clearance of 'polyester staple fibre' to some customers who were in possession of import licences for inputs that had been invalidated as a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eswar - II v. IFGL Refractories Ltd [205 (186) ELT 529 (SC)]. 3. Heard Learned Authorised Representative. None appeared for the respondent. 4. The decision supra of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by Learned Authorised Representative along with the instruction dated 14^th September 2005 of Central Board of Excise and Customs consequent upon the said judgment, has held t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....recipient which is amenable to quantification as additional consideration. The appellant-Commissioner has relied upon the terms of contract requiring invalidation of licence issued to customer of respondent as conferring a gain to the respondent without throwing light on the economic consequences of such invalidation. It would appear that the buyers of the respondent in the impugned transactions h....