9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem or through cooperative societies on job work basis. For the purpose of manufacture of watches, they manufacture various components which include screws falling under T.I. 52 and others falling under T.I. 68 CET. The appellants utilise most of the production of the parts for assembly of watches in the various units by way of captive consumption and a small fraction thereof, which is stated to be much less than one per cent, sell in the open market through their dealers. The appellants filed price lists under Part I, in term of Section 4(l)(a) of Central Excises and Salt Act applicable to the sales made through the dealers in open market conditions and also filed price lists in Part VI in term of Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules framed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price of the parts to the dealers was deliberately kept high so that the parts could not be misutilised for assembly of the same into watches by the dealers. He could not cite any case law in support of his plea that the price applicable in case of small fraction of the goods sold in the open market and having all the attributes of normal price in term of Section 4(l)(a) could not be adopted for assessment of the goods captively consumed. He also mentioned in terms of Notification 201/79 although the proforma credit in respect of goods falling under T.I. 68 was available, they could not really benefit by this as the duty chargeable on end product, the watches, was very low being one per cent and the duty on the parts was quite high. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone be relevant for the assessment. He cited the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1980 (6) E.L.T. 454 (Bom.)] and also the case of Bangalore Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 561)]. He also cited the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)]. He pleaded that there was no warrant in law in resorting to Rule 6 of Valuation Rules as pleaded by the appellants. He stated that it was upto the appellants to seek benefit from the competent authorities in terms of Notification 201/79, and that issue was not before the Tribunal. 5. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether when normal price in terms of Section 4(l)(a) is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame goods was filed and accepted. They concede that when the normal price under Section 4(1) (a) was available there was no warrant in law to have resorted to Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules for determination of the assessable value. The appellants only plea against the adoption of their sale price to the dealers for assessment of goods captively consumed is that the percentage of such of the said goods captively consumed was very low. It is not their plea, however, that this price charged to the dealers is not conforming to the parameters of the normal price in terms of Section 4(l)(a). We observe that under the Central Excise Law, if normal price for the purpose of assessment of duty under Section 4(l)(a) subject to other provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
