2020 (1) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re that the appellants were manufacturer of 'Reebok' brand shoes falling under Chapter Subheading No.6401.11 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were paying Central Excise duty and were not availing any benefit of Modvat scheme. For the clearances made during the period from August, 1996 to December, 1996 appellant were issued with a show cause notice dated 21.02.1997. It was stated in the said show cause notice that appellant were issued with another show cause notice under Customs Act, which was issued on 01.07.1996 and through the said show cause notice various raw materials imported by the appellants were alleged to be undervalued on their import into India and differential Customs duty of Rs. 34,430/- and CVD of Rs. 15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise reported at 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). They further contended that extended period of limitation was not invokable in the facts of the present case as there was no allegation about the suppression or misstatement in the show cause notice dated 21.02.1997. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and ordered to pay the appropriate interest on the confirmed amount. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. Heard Shri Jitin Singhal and Shri Pravesh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue. He has supported the impugned order. 5. Having considered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of record, we note that through the proceedings revenue is attempting to re-determine the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellant during the period from August, 1996 to December, 1996. The appellant has submitted that there were no allegations in the show cause notice that the price at which the goods were sold by the appellant to the buyers was not the sole consideration and they have also submitted that there were no allegations that there was any flow back of consideration from the buyers of the appellant. They have further relied on this Tribunal's decision in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is no allegation that there was no price at which the goods were being sold by the assessee to a buyer. We also observe that there was no allegation that the price was not the sole consideration or the dealings between the assessee and the buyers were not at arm's length. There is no allegation that there was a flowback of the money from the buyer to the assessee. Having regard to these factors and examining the price in the instant case, we find that there was no reason to reject the price simply because it was less than the cost of manufacture of raw material, manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. Having regard to these rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we uphold the contentions of the appellants that the price declared by ....