TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved in the present appeal is valuation of intermediate product viz. Proteolysed Liver Extract and Pharma Reptone manufactured by the Appellant and captively consumed in the manufacture of final product. As the final product attracts duty under Medicinal & Toilet Preparations Act, the Appellant was paying duty on said intermediate product. They were also purchasing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nover. After the protracted litigation at Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal the matter again came before the adjudicating authority who dropped the demands by accepting the prices of comparable goods on the basis of which duty was paid by the Appellant. The revenue filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who held that on issue of valuation of the impugned product, the Commissioner (Appeals) v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the department. Hence the present appeal by the Appellant. 2. Shri S.S. Gupta Ld. CA appearing for the Appellant submits that as the prices of same goods manufactured by other manufacturer is available hence the said prices being comparable prices would form basis for valuation of their product. The lower authorities or the Commissioner (Appeals) never observed that the said goods are not compara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough the facts of the case and orders passed by the lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) from time to time. We find that in the show cause notice issued to the Appellant there has been no dispute about the identity of the goods to the fact that the goods manufactured by the Appellant is not same then those brought from the other supplier. The only dispute raised in show cause notice is that ....