Sunday, 19 March 2017 11:46

CESTAT Chennai : Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli : 13th March, 2017

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI

Appeal No. E/711/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.30/COMMR/07 dt. 11.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli]

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd.
Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
Respondent

Appearance:
Ms.Minchu Mariam Punnoose, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / decision :13.03.2017

FINAL ORDER No.40485/2017

Per: D.N. Panda

Appellant says that this case is similar to that was dealt by Tribunal in Final Order Nos.42481/2016 dt. 19.12.2016 and 40285/2017 dt.23.01.2017 in respect of the same appellant. According to Revenue, appellant adopted sale price of Rs.200/- per MT in respect of clearance made to its related buyers while that was Rs.1800/- when sold to others. Appellant clarifies that the goods sold to other independent buyer viz. SIGCIL, was upon undertaking additional processes as stated in para (f) of the reply to the SCN filed before the authority on 15.6.2007 (Ref. Page 27 of the appeal folder). But unprocessed goods were sold to related party i.e. TAC. It is further clarification of the appellant that volume of sale between related party (TAC) and unrelated party (SICGIL) was in the ratio of 95 :5. TAC was a bulk buyer of manufactured goods.


2. Revenue contends that huge difference in the pricing has caused prejudice to Revenue.


3. In the previous final orders referred to above, Tribunal has considered that in absence of any market enquiry done and also peculiar circumstances brought out, it is difficult for the Tribunal to agree with the allegation of Revenue. The present case also suffers from similar difficulties. Therefore, without dilating the matter further, following the judicial discipline, this appeal is also allowed.


(Dictated and pronounced in open court)


(Madhu Mohan Damodhar)                 (D.N. Panda)
Technical Member                     Judicial Member


gs



Additional Info

  • Date Range: Monday, 13 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Central Excise
  • Petitioner/Appellant: Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
  • Respondent: Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli
  • Appl no. or Appl year: Appeal No. E/711/2007
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Chennai
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court
Read 367 times