9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... narily sold and declaring, in particular, the normal trade discount to be nil. The assessable value declared was in a sum of Rs. 149.07 per 108 cakes; (b) a notice, dated 5-11-1980 alleging, inter alia, (i) sales at a price higher than the one declared in the price list w.e.f. 3-1-1980, (ii) consequent increase in the assessable value of the goods in question - Rs. 154.19 instead of Rs. 149.07 as originally declared - resulting in differential duty in a sum of Rs. 42,825.09 during the period between 3-1-1980 and 30-4-1980, and requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the aforesaid demand for differential duty should not be confirmed and recovered and a penalty levied in terms of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant stated, inter alia, that - (i) in submitting the aforesaid price list, they were solely guided by the ratio of the decision in the Voltas case [1977 E.L.T. 177]. (ii) accordingly, the price list had revealed merely the manufacturing cost and duty thereon and they had shown the extras under the head post manufacturing expenses and distribution expenses in the invoices concerned. (iii) as the judgment was binding on all concerned, we thought it prudent on our part to furnish only the manufacturing cost for purposes of assessment and got it approved initially. The rest, such as trade discount, freight, and distribution expenses were all treated as post manufacturing expenses on which exemption was claimed while arriving at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is merely an understatement. 3. (a) Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was amended after the judgment in the Voltas case and detailed provisions in relation to the inclusion or exclusion, as the case may be, of various elements of the price at which goods are ordinarily sold in the computation of the assessable value were enacted therein. The procedure for the determination of the assessable value, the forms in which price lists have to be filed were all prescribed. It was for the appropriate officer to determine the assessable value excluding from it such elements of the price (at which goods are ordinarily sold) that cannot form part of the assessable value - not for the assessee himself to deduct whatever he f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he did in the reply, dated 4-9-1984 Are these elements not to be declared in the price list but only to be shown in the invoices? Shown to whom and to what purpose? 4. The detection took place in the course of the assessment. The demand was confined to a period of less than six months anterior to the detection thereof. The subsequent notice, dated 1-8-1984 was not in supersession of the earlier notice, dated 5-11-1980 but in revision thereof. There is no question but the demand was within time. 5. In the result, we do not see any merits in this appeal and we have no hesitation in dismissing it, as it would appear that the appellant had, by virtue of the Assistant Collector s order, obtained relief which should not have been allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
