1999 (6) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of Glass Bottles falling under Chapter Heading 7007.90 of C.E.T. Act, 1985. They were also designing and manufacturing moulds for the glass bottles falling under sub-heading No. 8480.00 of CETA, 1985. The show cause notice dated 25-4-1994 was issued to the appellants alleging violation of Rule 9(2) and other Rules and proviso to Section 11AC was invoked on the ground that appellants with fraudulent intention to evade duty had included Mould Development Charges in the assessable value of the glass bottles and had therefore cleared the same at lower assessable value. The show cause notice had annexures which gave details of the statements recorded from Shri P.R.G. Nair, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of facts , therefore duty on short levy was required to be confirmed including order of confiscation of plant and machinery and imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lac. 6. Ld. Consultant Shri C. Chidambaram arguing for the appellants points out from the show cause notice itself that proceedings were against those moulds which had not been included in the assessable value and statements clearly indicated that no charges had been raised in respect of those moulds from the customers and the customers had not placed any orders for manufacture in respect of rejected moulds. Therefore, the Commissioner's understanding that appellants had not produced evidence is not sustainable in the light of the charges made in the show cause notice itself. He .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. 9. On careful consideration of the submissions, we notice from the cited judgment in C.C.E. v. Shardlow India Ltd (supra) the Tribunal has clearly laid down that cost worked out on pro-rata basis in respect of master dies is required to be added in the assessable value in respect of those dies which have been utilised for manufacture of final product. In this case, the appellants contend that they have added the assessable value in respect of those moulds which have been utilised for manufacture of glass bottles. It is their contention that in respect of those charges in which debit notes were raised and on which customers did not approve and did not make payments those charges were not added at all as the same was not addable even .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X