TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These appeals are filed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/79 to 114/Th-II/2010 dated 19.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 'Fire extinguisher and parts thereof'. These goods are sold at their factory as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant submits that the appellant had sold/ cleared manufactured goods from their factory directly to the customers and a part of said manufactured goods after clearing to the depot, were sold from there. In determining the assessable value of the goods cleared to depot, instead of applying Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, they ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty equal to the differential duty, also cannot be sustained. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that after applying Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the demand of Rs. 16,72,294/- and also the penalty. He submits that since data relating to clearance from the facto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s were sold from the depots at higher price, without discharging the differential duty. The appellants do not dispute the fact that at the time of goods transferred from the factory to the depot, duty was required to be paid by determining the assessable value adopting Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. But, their grievance is that penalty equivalent to the differential duty canno....