2005 (4) TMI 335 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding deductions claimed by the appellants for arriving at assessable value.
- Dispute over deductions for rent of duty-paid godown, depreciation for bottles, and quantity discount.
- Contestation of findings by the Commissioner on the above issues.
- Failure to provide evidence supporting deductions claimed by the appellants.
- Rejection of deductions by the Commissioner leading to the appeal.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing aerated waters, transferred goods to an adjacent duty-paid godown for distribution without sales at the factory gate. Deductions claimed under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules were disputed by the Department, leading to a series of orders and appeals. The Commissioner disallowed deductions for rent of duty-paid godown, depreciation for bottles, and quantity discount, prompting the present appeal.

The appellants contested the Commissioner's findings on rent for the duty-paid godown, arguing it was part of the factory. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Commissioner's determination that the rent was separate and not included in the factory rent was upheld. Similarly, the Commissioner's decision on depreciation for bottles was supported as the appellants did not provide figures for the relevant year. The lack of evidence for the quantity discount claimed by the appellants led to its disallowance.

The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order. Extraneous issues raised during arguments were deemed irrelevant as the case was limited to the specified issues for re-examination. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Commissioner's decision on the disputed deductions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings on rent, depreciation, and quantity discount deductions, emphasizing the appellants' failure to substantiate their claims with evidence. The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal refusing to address issues beyond the scope of the remand order, thereby affirming the Commissioner's decision.