9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with proviso to sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 (as then in existence) ibid and further read with proviso to sub-section 1 of the Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 : (Goods removed during 1980-81 upto 22-7-1980) (1) 2385 pressure cookers valued at Rs. 5,26,826.60 (Annexure D-I to D-III to show cause notice) (2) 216 Electric Mixers valued at Rs. 1,59, 840/- (Annexure C to show cause notice) (3) 3 Electric Motors valued at Rs. 435/- (Para 5 of Annexure `A to show cause notice) (4) 689 pressure cookers valued at Rs. 1,51,487/- removed during 1979-80 (as detailed in Annexure `F-2 to the show cause notice) (5) 122 Electric Mixers valued at Rs. 89,211/- removed during 1979-80 as detailed in Annexure `C to the show cause notice) I impose a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) on the Noble Electric Company under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) and Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944". 2. The facts in brief of the case are that M/s. Noble Electric Company are engaged in the manufacture of Pressure Cookers, Electric Mixers and Electric Motors. With pressure cookers, the appellants also supplied aluminium utensils which they got man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (d) that the electric motors were the specified goods and were wholly exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 35/69, dated 1-3-1969 and therefore, the value of electric motors should not be taken into consideration for computing the total value in view of Explanation IV to Notification 71/78; that if the value of electric motors manufactured in the factory is taken into account and the value of the mixers is also taken into account it amounts to taking the value of motors twice over; (e) that the value of aluminium utensils should not be included inasmuch as the same are not manufactured by the appellants. In support of the above contentions, the appellants relied upon and cited a lot of case law. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Collector passed the order as reproduced in the preceding paragraph. 3. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the value of clearances for the financial year 1979-80 was less than Rs. 20 lakhs, if discount on pressure cookers, cost of special packing, the expenses incurred on advertisement and the cost of aluminium utensils are deducted. The learned counsel submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his contentions, he cited and relied upon the ratio of the decision in the case of Pawan Biscuits reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 595 and others reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 317; 1987 (27) E.L.T. 269 and 1986 (25) E.L.T. 609. 6. On the question of trade discount, the learned DR submitted that no such trade discount was claimed by the appellants in the price lists and therefore, the claim for deduction of the same was not admissible. In support of his contention, the learned DR cited and relied upon the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 39; 1992 (62) E.L.T. 696 and 1993 (67) E.L.T. 241. 7. On the question of secondary packing, the learned DR submitted that no evidence was brought by the appellants on record to show as to how the goods were packed and therefore, this claim remains unsubstantiated. 8. On the question that the value of clearance of pressure cookers, and electric mixers comes to below Rs. 5 lakhs, the learned DR submitted in view of the above discussions, no deduction on account of trade discount or secondary packing and advertisement can be made and hence the total value of clearances remains more than Rs. 5 lakhs in the above tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the price of each goods and the trade discount, if any, allowed in respect thereof to the buyers along with such other particulars as the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Collector may specify . It would thus be seen that a trade discount allowed, if any, in respect of manufacture should be indicated in the price-list. Now, let us see what the finding in this respect is. The Collector in his finding has very clearly held that no such trade discount has been declared by the appellants in the price-list and therefore, the claim for the deduction of the same appears to be an after-thought. This finding of the adjudicating authority has not been rebutted by the appellants. Examining this aspect in the light of the provisions of Rule 173C(1), we hold that in the absence of the trade discount being indicated in the price-list, the discount cannot be allowed. Recently, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R.F. clearly held that the discount should be known in advance. There is no indication in the price-list that this discount claimed by the appellants was disclosed in advance. No evidence has been led before us to prove that such discount was disclosed in advance. As t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
