9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Rs. 4 per tin distribution charges over and above the approved assessable value. It was of the view that it was therefore clear that this fact of charging of Rs. 4 per tin from their customer was not disclosed and was concealed by the party from Central Excise Department. No break up of the said distribution charges was mentioned in the invoice issued in this regard. Accordingly seven show cause notices covering the aforesaid periods of April, 1981 to October, 1981 were issued to the party requiring them to show cause as to why the Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 33,947.65 short paid on this account should not be demanded from them under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The show cause notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A filed by the party. The Order of Collector (Appeals) was challenged by the party on the issue with reference to inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value and against the charging of the duty amount, the Department has filed an appeal with reference to the same impugned order. Hence appeals and cross objection are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri H.P. Arora, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that issue is with reference to the inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses. All the post-manufacturing expenses were admissible deductions at the relevant point of time in view of the prevailing case law on this issue and referred to the decision in the case of Hindustan Lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that apart from the merits of the case the demand was clearly barred by time since show cuse notice was issued beyond the period of six months. Larger period could not be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts nor mentioned as such in the show cause notice. Price lists were duly approved by the Department and distribution expenses have been shown separately and hence it cannot be considered to be a suppression to invoke the larger period. 3. While countering the arguments Shri B.K. Singh, learned SDR submitted that issue on merits has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyre International. The deductions as claimed by the party in the instant case does not fall under the purv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was rightly pointed out by the Departmental Representative. The Hon ble Supreme Court in its detailed judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International have set at rest all the controversies and speculations having arisen on this account. It has been ordered that no deduction from the wholesale price value are deductible save and except in respect of (a) trade discount (b) excise duty, sales tax and other taxes if any payable in respect of excisable goods and (c) averaged freight.......... Since charge of Rs. 4 per tin was arrived on the basis of averaging expenditure incurred on past orders/sales and as such these are not to be excluded from the value of goods not being the post-manufacturing expenses as it was rightly observed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
