2018 (8) TMI 1660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of Air Handling Unit, Fan Coil Unit and Packaged Split Air Conditioners. They cleared goods to their branches situated in Bangalore, Cochin, Hyderabad, Chennai etc., who in turn sold the goods as such to the customers. They cleared air handling u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman submitted that the show cause notice alleged that the valuation has to be done under Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 which has been adopted by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Rule 9 would be applicable. That this would go to show t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the invoices. The very same product which has been cleared from the factory is sold from the branch office at a higher price. The only contention raised by the ld. counsel is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has applied Rule 9 in his discussions whereas the show cause notice as well as the adjudication order adopts valuation under Rule 7 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The allegations in....