9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Collector of Central Ex. Customs (Appeals), Allahabad. Since these two appeals are interlinked and connected they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants M/s. LML Ltd. (formerly known as Lohia Machines Ltd.) C-6 to 10 Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur are manufacturers of Motor Vehicles (Scooters) falling under erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 34 upto 28-2-1986 and after that under C.H. 87.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was charged that they were evading payment of appropriate Central Excise duty by lowering the assessable value of their product. Accordingly proceedings were initiated. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manded as per show cause notice in para No. Amount confirmed by the Collector as per his order 1. 3,12,990.09 19- Rs. 3,12,990.09 2. 3,13,674.73 24- Rs. 3,505.00 3. 3,94,428.40 27- Rs. 3,94,428.40 4. 30- Rs. 13,14,279.50 1,65,751.05 5. 7,25,166.06 45- Rs. 1,64,398.30 6. 51- Rs. 11,74,960.58 11,74,960.58 7. 2,02,683.37 54- Rs. 2,02,680.00 3.Shri Santhanam submitted that in respect of Item No. 1, it was alleged that the party has charged Rs. 25/-per scooter as forwarding charges over and above the freight charges from the customers. Forwarding charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e scooter but still it was added in the assessable value and accordingly the appellants are required to pay duty on Oil at the rate applicable to Scooter. As regards advertisements the appellants have reimbursed 50% of cost incurred by the Authorised Representative but no deduction was claimed by the appellants, but still the Department added the other 50% cost of advertisement incurred by the Authorised Representatives in their respective area in determining the assessable value of the product of the appellants. He contended that appellants have not lowered the assessable value of the product manufactured by them and pleas advanced by the appellants as well as evidence adduced in respect of each item has not been properly considered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector to calculate the actual duty payable but in view of the direction that it has to be worked out on perusal of the relevant documents and certificate, he has no objection for remanding the matter in respect of two issues in view of the case law referred to by the other side. He said that the Collector has given finding in respect of the issues wherein he confirmed the duty after considering the pleas advanced by the appellants. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the Collector is not right in directing the Assistant Collector to determine the duty payable with reference to the two issues on verification of documents since such power cannot be delegated and he himself has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
