1998 (7) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Value of investment on plant and machinery
2. Inclusion of cost of packing and forwarding charges in the assessable value
3. Clearance of goods without cover of gate passes and without accountal in statutory records
4. Sale price to be treated as cum-duty price

Analysis:

(i) Value of investment on plant and machinery:
The appeal concerned a duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellants for exceeding the investment limit on plant and machinery, making them ineligible for a small-scale exemption. The Department argued that the investment exceeded the limit, based on the balance sheet. The appellants disputed the additional investment amount, but the Tribunal found the balance sheet and the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported the Department's claim. The Tribunal upheld the duty liability but directed reworking the duty amount in line with the amended Notification.

(ii) Inclusion of cost of packing and forwarding charges:
The inclusion of packing and forwarding charges in the assessable value was disputed by the appellants. They argued that their products did not require packing and were often sold without it. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the inclusion of these charges and set aside the Collector's finding on this issue.

(iii) Clearance of goods without cover of gate passes:
The appellants were found to have cleared goods without gate passes and proper record-keeping, claiming these were returned items for repair. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of compliance with the required procedure for returning excisable goods and upheld the duty liability on goods cleared without proper documentation.

(iv) Sale price to be treated as cum-duty price:
The appellants contended that the sale price should be considered as cum-duty price, and duty should be recalculated accordingly. The Tribunal accepted this argument based on a previous Tribunal order and directed the jurisdictional authority to recompute the duty demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held the appellants liable for duty due to exceeding the investment limit, directed reworking the duty amount, excluded packing and forwarding charges from the assessable value, upheld duty liability for goods cleared without proper documentation, and accepted the sale price as cum-duty price for duty calculation purposes. The appeal was disposed of with these decisions.