2004 (1) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order regarding pre-deposit amount.
2. Error in considering goods meant for captive consumption.
3. Inclusion of manufacturing costs in assessable value.
4. Consideration of head office expenses in assessable value.
5. Alleged error in findings based on statements.
6. Issue of limitation in the plea for dispensing with pre-deposit.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a miscellaneous application for modification of a stay order requiring a pre-deposit amount. The applicants argued that the goods in question were meant for captive consumption, contrary to the Tribunal's finding. They sought reconsideration of the order based on this premise. The Tribunal dismissed the modification application, stating that there was no glaring mistake apparent on the face of the record to warrant rectification.

2. The applicants contended that the goods were indeed meant for captive consumption, as accepted in the Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original. They argued that the Tribunal's finding to the contrary was erroneous and beyond the scope of the proceedings. The issue of the Board's Circular of 2003 not applying was raised, emphasizing the goods' purpose. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in the applicants' arguments and dismissed the application for modification.

3. Regarding the inclusion of manufacturing costs in the assessable value, the applicants asserted that all relevant costs had been considered, including raw materials, labor, factory overheads, and profit. They argued that the Tribunal's finding of costs not being included was erroneous. However, the Tribunal found no glaring mistake in this regard and rejected the plea for modification.

4. The consideration of head office expenses in the assessable value was also disputed by the applicants. They claimed that such expenses were already factored into the valuation process, contrary to the Tribunal's finding. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, concluded that there was no evident mistake warranting modification of the stay order.

5. The applicants challenged the findings based on statements, alleging errors in the Tribunal's interpretation. They argued that certain admissions were inaccurately portrayed in the order. Despite the contentions raised, the Tribunal found no substantial error justifying a modification of the stay order.

6. Lastly, the issue of limitation was raised in the context of the plea for dispensing with the pre-deposit requirement. The Tribunal noted the reference to limitation in the order but found no specific findings on this aspect. The applicants' arguments regarding limitation were considered but ultimately dismissed, as the Tribunal did not find any glaring errors justifying a modification of the stay order.