TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/215/M-II/2009 dated 8.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of branded toilet soaps for M/s Godrej Soaps Ltd. on job work (loan lic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rential duty after disallowing the deductions with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and the matter travelled upto Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in the present appeal, they confined their argument to the deductions namely, freight charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be subjected to interest. In support, she has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (246) ELT 342 (T). 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). On principle about admissibility of the said deduction, he does not dispute. However, he submits that during the relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk charges during the relevant period from April, 1997 to January, 1999. In principle, there is no dispute of the fact that all these elements of expenses are eligible as deduction from the price in arriving at the assessable value and their admissibility to the appellant during the said period. The adjudicating authority in the order observed that the appellant had failed to produce relevant reco....