2002 (7) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch the same have been cleared from the factory and on which duty has been paid accordingly. As such he has rejected the appellants' factory gate sale price for the purposes of assessments and has adopted the depot sale as the basis for assessment of duty. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty, ld. Advocate. appearing for the appellants assails the impugned order on merits as also on limitation. He submits that the appellant was having factory gate sales as also clearing the goods to their depots. He submits that in the present order, the Commissioner has not referred to any evidence showing that the factory gate sale price of the appellant was not genuine. He submits that they were filing the price lists regularly with the Revenue, which were approve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch sale may be, the assessable value cannot be determined on the basis of ex-depot prices. He submits that the same very question cropped up before the Tribunal in earlier proceedings when the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner dropping the proceedings against them, is set aside. In this connection he draws our attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE, Shillong v. M/s. Kitply Industries - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 421(Tribunal). He submits that the said order of the Tribunal has not been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such has attained finality. 3. He also challenges the confirmation of demand on the point of limitation and submits that the appellants have been filing price lists from tim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n drawn to the impugned order of the Commissioner observing that in three cases of sales at the factory gate, the appellants have issued debit notes. As such the genuineness of the factory gate sales is doubted. 5. In his rejoinder Dr. Chakraborty clarifies that the said three debit notes were in respect of transportation and handling charges for single party situated at Ludhiana. He also draws our attention to the said debit notes which have been issued by the appellants on account of transportation charges. He submits that the said buyer instead of undertaking the transportation himself has requested the appellant to arrange for the transportation and it is the re-imbursement of the expenses undertaken by them at the request of their c....