2018 (10) TMI 960

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein it has been raised on the ground that the appellant was required to pay duty under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was engaged in manufacturing of Pesticides, Insecticides, DDVP, and Weedicides. The appellant was aff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was confirmed along with interest and amount already paid was appropriated, penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (A) who confirmed the demand adjudicated by the adjudicating authority but dropped the penalty against the appellant on the ground that no mala-fides can be attributed against the appellant being Government organisation. Against the said or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t price and added 35% thereon and gave rebate in terms of section 4(A) and asked the duty to be paid by the appellant. The price list is not the cost of the goods as it include profit margin of the appellant, therefore, the basis of arriving the assessable value is not correct. In that circumstances, it is his submissions that the duty demand is not sustainable against the appellant. He further su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing 35% to the cost of the product. As MRP was not available during the course of investigation, therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority to arrive the correct assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 4(A) of the Act by taking cost of goods +35% and price list cannot be taken cost of goods. 7. In these terms, we set aside the impugned order and r....