The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner by filing appeal before the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for short, the Tribunal taking the plea that additional companysideration under Section 4 of the Act refers only to the additional companysideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee and in the present case numbersuch additional companysideration flew from the advance licence buyers of the deemed exports.
Therefore, the Commissioner companyfirmed the demand of differential duty as mentioned in the show cause numberices and also levied penalties and interest.
Not only such buyers, who were sold the goods at a lower price, were related persons, even the goods were sold at depressed price.
Pertinently, the decision of the Tribunal in IFGLs case stands overruled by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar II v. IFGL Refractories Ltd.2 In the said case, this Court has held such a companysideration, namely, duty drawback, to be the additional companysideration inasmuch as the benefit of duty drawback accruing to the seller was the result of surrender of advance licence by the buyers.
It had been clearing the same on payment of central excise duty.
K. SIKRI, J. The respondent hereinafter referred to as the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of polyester chips, polyester staple fibre, polyester filament yarn and other goods.
