2021 (9) TMI 497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent for the Respondent: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur & Mr. Amandeep Kumar, ARs ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders. As all the appeals are having common issue, therefore, all are disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of pressure cookers and parts thereof. The pressure cookers are covered under Section 4A of the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....abatement of 35% of MRP. The said assessment was originally approved by the Central Excise Department on provisional basis. Later on, finalization of the same was done and abatement was increased to 41.41% as claimed by the appellant. The dispute in the present appeals is relates to the value of parts which are being cleared by the appellant to their other sister units located at Thane (Maharashtr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring on behalf of the appellant submits that the dispute is in relation to pressure cookers parts only. Pressure cookers parts are not notified items in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, they are not required to affix MRP on the same but for the ease of doing business, they are putting MRP thereon and as per the provisional assessment, they claimed an abatement of 35....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ayable only on transaction value, hence, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR supports the impugned orders and submits that the appellant is required to pay duty on invoice value of goods cleared by them without any deduction as provided under Valuation Rules 2000 read with Section 4(1) of Act. She also submits that clearing the said goods under Section 4, ....