9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate duty. The dispute in this appeal relates the period from 24-3-1982 to 28-8-1983. The Department found that during the period in question, besides collecting as per invoices the price declared in the price lists, appellant was collecting certain amounts by separate debit notes by way of share in the management service charges and the advertisement expenses from the buyers and had not declared these amounts in the price lists. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24-3-1987 was issued stating that under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International case - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896, the amounts collected as aforesaid were required to be included in the assessable value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant could not be attributed the intention of suppression of fact of collection of certain post manufacturing expenses, much less of intention to evade duty. He also contended that during the period from 1976 to 1979 the Department was fully aware that similar collection was being made during that period. Shri H.K. Jain, SDR rebutted these contentions and contended that no documents were produced in support of the plea of bona fide belief during the year 1982 to 1983. 4. In A.K. Roy s case - 1977 (1) E.L.T. (J 177), the Supreme Court held that real assessable value would include the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit and would exclude post manufacturing cost and the profit arising from post manufacturing operation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value and ultimately the notice was dropped on 31-5-1977 by the Assistant Collector, Pune observing that duty paid was correct. This was followed by departmental enquiry in 1979 regarding the amount collected for management service charges under debit, debits not being shown in the price lists. Appellant again justified the stand and price lists were approved without much ado. In 1979, the audit party required the appellant to produce various documents including balance-sheets, debit notes and the like and it was asserted that all these were produced before the audit party. 6. The above circumstances are relied on to show that during the period from 1976 to 1979, such amounts were being collected as per debit notes and the Department wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
