1999 (6) TMI 274 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty confirmation under Rule 173Q of C.E. Rules, 1944
2. Alleged violation of Rule 9(2) and Section 11AC of C.E.T. Act, 1985
3. Inclusion of Mould Development Charges in assessable value of glass bottles
4. Evidence presented by the appellants regarding the inclusion of charges
5. Commissioner's decision based on lack of supporting data or evidence
6. Argument regarding the charges for moulds not utilized in manufacturing
7. Comparison with the judgment of C.C.E. v. Shardlow India Ltd
8. Discrepancies in the authorities' verification process and evidence linking

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS stemmed from a case involving duty demand, penalty imposition, and confiscation of plant and machinery due to alleged violations by the appellants, who were glass bottle manufacturers also designing moulds. The show cause notice accused them of including Mould Development Charges fraudulently in the assessable value of glass bottles. The appellants defended themselves by stating that charges were included only for manufactured bottles, not rejected moulds. The Commissioner, however, found the appellants' evidence lacking in detailed cost breakdowns or financial data, leading to the confirmation of duty demand and penalties.

The appellants argued that the Department failed to prove undervaluation and that charges for manufactured moulds were correctly included in assessable value. They referenced a judgment regarding charges for master dies only when utilized in final goods. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the authorities' verification process, emphasizing the need to link debit notes to resultant goods to determine correct assessable value and duty payments. As the authorities did not adequately examine this issue, the Tribunal remanded the case for reconsideration, directing a detailed verification of evidence and providing the appellants with a hearing opportunity to explain the records. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for remand to the original authority for a thorough review in line with the cited judgment and the Tribunal's findings.