TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereof chargeable to Central Excise Duty under sub-heading 7615.20, 761519.20, 7615.10, 7615.90, 7623.90 and 732393.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dispute in this case pertains to the valuation of the parts of the pressure cookers during the period from October 2006 to March 2007. While the pressure cookers, for the purpose of determining assessable value, are covered by the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the parts of the pressure cookers are assessed to duty on the value determined under the main Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. During the period of dispute, the appellant were removing the pressure cooker parts to their depots for further sale to independent buyers. At the time of removal of pressu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty five depots situated all over India for sale to dealers and other buyers, that the appellant is required under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 to print Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for both the pressure cookers, as well as pressure cooker parts, that while the pressure cookers are notified under a Notification issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly are assessed to duty with reference to MRP minus permitted abatement, parts of the pressure cookers, not being notified under Section 4A, are assessed duty on the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, that the dispute in this case is only over the value of the parts of the pressure cookers, that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the Commissioner (Appeal) s order upholding the Joint Commissioner s order is based on the report dated 24-2-09 sent by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent whose copy was not given to the appellant and thus an adverse order has been passed against the appellant without giving them the copy of the said superintendent s report and without affording them an opportunity to deal with the said report, that the discounts on the MRP price mentioned in the invoices for removal of the goods from the factory to the depots had been passed on to the buyers and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 5. Ld. SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned orders. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. The di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs at the time for sales from the depots. 8. Since in this case, the goods were being sold from the depots, it is the depot which is to be treated as the place of the removal and as per the provisions of Section 4, the duty was required to be paid at the time of removal from the factory on the value of the goods at the depots, while the duty has been paid by the appellant on price equal to MRP minus 35% at the time of removal from the factory, There is no evidence produced by the Department that at the time of removal, the goods were being sold from the depots at the full MRP price without any abatement. In fact, in this regard, the Commissioner (Appeals) s observations at the time of hearing that the appellant produced some invoices of ....