9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for re-determination of the correct amount of differential duty due in the present cases. Being satisfied that the course suggested is the appropriate course to be followed, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeals for consideration. 2. The period in dispute is from April, 1992 to January, 1994. During this period, appellant was manufacturing Arm Assembly Rear Trailing (ART) and Rod Assembly Rear Control (RRC) and supplying the same to M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL). Appellant has been procuring raw materials or parts, as the case may be. MUL was supplying bushes free of cost for being fitted to above products. Appellant was manufacturing the above products and was sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shes, whether the value was taken from any document and if so, what document and if the value was arrived at on calculation of all the elements, the method of calculation. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR has placed before us a copy of the reply dated 10-6-1998 received from the Assistant Commissioner. The reply shows that MUL had imported bushes at FOB prices in Japanese Yen specified in the reply that the FOB prices were converted in Indian Rupees at the exchange rate of Rs. 100 = JY 310, such prices were converted into CIF prices by adding freight and insurance at 20% and 0.278% respectively, customs duty on bushes was 87.5% of the CIF value, landing cost of bushes was arrived at as indicated in the reply. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as indicated in the reply dated 10-6-1998 and referred to above. It was in this light that both sides requested us to remand the case for re-determination of assessable value. In this view, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that for the purpose of these appeals, he is not arguing the other two contentions namely, that bushes cannot be regarded as part of the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant and the ground of limitation. 6. In the light of what we have indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for re-determination of the assessable value of bushes and of central excise duty payable, taking into consideration all the contentions of appellant recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
