9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri G. Chander Kumar, the learned Counsel for the applicants pleaded that duty has been demanded from the applicants for the reasons that the applicants had included the amount received by them towards tooling and development of the product which was ordered for by their buyers. He pleaded that initially a duty of Rs. 25,31,045 had been demanded from the applicants for the reasons that the applicants/appellants had received an amount of Rs. 18,55,000/- and Rs. 63,34,561 in the form of tool and die development charges during the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively from the customers M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Madras and also interest accrued therefrom was not reckoned towards the assessable value. He pleaded that after the applicants had show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration the total amount received and the number of pieces to be supplied against the order in question. In this connection the learned Counsel referred us to page 140 of the note book showing the work sheet. He urged the learned lower authority had accepted the principle of amortization. He pleaded that this Tribunal in the case of the very same applicants/appellants in similar circumstances in respect of amount which had been received in bulk, and duty had been demanded, has held as under :- "It is not uncommon in the industry to collect certain development charges if a new product has to be developed and it has to be established that these development charges are relatable to the goods that are manufactured and cleared by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tributable to each piece taking into consideration the total amount divided by number of pieces to be supplied. The lower authority should have followed the same principle while demanding duty in respect of the order in question. The appellants, it has been stated by the learned lower authority, could not show that this loading had been done and the plea of the appellants is that the full supply of the quantity ordered had not been completed and the loading at worst could be done only to the extent of the amount amortized per piece as above in respect of supplies made so far and referred us to the clearances made by the appellants against that order and the amount that was demandable. We observe that the appellants' plea prima facie is acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
