CCE Vs. CEAT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have heard Shri N.A. Sayeed, JDR appearing for the revenue. Respondents are represented by their Manager (Excise), Shri V.R. Inamdar.

(2.) AS per the facts on record, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tyres and were clearing the same from their factory to various depots on stock transfer basis. They were issued a show cause notice alleging that on some occasions during March 1997 to October 2000 they sold tyres from their Gurgaon depot at prices which were higher than the price declared in their price declaration submitted from time to time in terms of provisions of Rule 173C. Accordingly, notice proposing to adopt higher assessable value and accordingly demanding duty to the tune of Rs. 6,33,169/ - was issued. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand of duty along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. However, on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the revenue.

(3.) AS is clear from above, the appellate authority has followed the Board's circular as also various decisions of the Tribunal on the disputed issue. Revenue in their memorandum of appeal has not disputed the existence or applicability of Board's circular but submitted that the clearance of the tyres from the factory was by adopting the sale price of the tyres from the depot, which was meant for replacement market, whereas the tyres in question were actually sold to original manufacturer as original equipment. As such, it is their contention that the circular would not be applicable.