9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals). This Order-i n-Appeal in para 7 thereof applies the same reasonings as is contained in the earlier Order-in-Appeal No. 66/98 dated 2-7-1998, therefore, while considering these appeals, I shall also look into the findings in the said Orders-in-AppeaI in great detail. 3. Heard Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, learned JDR, who submits that the department is aggrieved by these two Orders-in-Appeal on the following grounds :- (a) Since the glass bottles are in the nature of durable and returnable containers, therefore, the cost of such packing was not included in the assessable value and hence there can be no availment of Modvat credit on these glass bottles. (b) The respondents claimed that the cost of these glass bottles has in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these glass bottles has been considered in the pricing of the final product. The learned Consultant says that there is no error in this finding at all. He further submits that if the department disputes the accuracy of this certificate, it is for the department to prove with the product on figures already available with them and the balance sheet also available with them, as to how the Chartered Accountant s certificate is erroneous. He further submits that normally such certificate of Chartered Accountant, who have to base their calculations on universally accepted principles of accountancy is considered valid by the department in all other cases. 5. The learned DR further submits that the revenue is also of the opinion that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned consultant submits that the Notification No. 36/95 dated 17-11-1995 had not included glass bottles in the definition of imports under Rule 57A. On the contrary, they had excluded crates and glass bottles used for aerated waters. Therefore, this very ground of appeal of the department is totally erroneous. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as facts of the case. I find that the Notification No. 36/95 (N.T.), dated 17-11-1995 amends Rule 57A and specifically mentions in sub-clause (iv) crates and glass bottles used for aerated waters. The effect of this is that Modvat credit on crates and glass bottles is specifically excluded from the Modvat credit under Rule 57A with effect from 17-11-1995. However, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving at the profit for this financial year. It is a well known principle of accountancy that the profit on the product depends on its costing, inasmuch as that after the costing etc. is deducted from the sale proceeds, we get the profit. Therefore, if the said expenditure has been considered in the profit and loss account of the respondents, it cannot be said that indirectly this expenditure has already not been added to the value of the product in question i.e. aerated water. Thirdly, I find that the Chartered Accountant has further attempted to work out Rs. 3.10 per crate, as the pro-rata expenditure in this behalf for 29,05,603 crates of aerated water cleared by the respondents in this financial year. In fact I also find that this figure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
