2018 (11) TMI 1808

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Chattopadhyay, Suptd. A. R. for the Revenue ORDER The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 29/HAL/08 dated 17/04/2008. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Rolls for Rolling Mills and the scrap generated during the process. They cleared certain goods to M/s. B. B. Forging (P) Ltd. during the period 01/04/2001 to 31/03/2003, on payment of Central Excise Duty. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Rule 8 is required to be adopted. But the Revenue was of the view that since the amalgamation has been made effective from 01/04/2001, the clearance of goods made to M/s. B. B. Forging (P) Ltd are required to be valued in terms of Rule 8, right from 01/04/2001. Accordingly, differential duty demand was raised. Challenging such an order for payment for differential duty, the present appeal stands....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onnection, he relied upon various decisions. 5. The Ld. DR for Revenue, justified the impugned order. He reiterated that the amalgamation scheme sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court is effective from 01/04/2001, as has been spelt out clearly in the order of the Hon'ble High Court. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The dispute is regarding another unit transfer of cert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds is required to be adopted with effect from that that. 8. The dispute is essentially for the period 01/04/2001 to 27/08/2001. At the time of clearance of goods, the amalgamation order of the Hon'ble High Court was not available to the appellant. Consequentially, the goods were cleared on commercial terms and the same cannot be considered as with quotation "Sale" within the meaning of Sale of ....