9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured by them and the remaining are sold to industrial consumers, Dabar India Ltd., Pure Drinks, Pepsico Foods Ltd., Coca Cola, Punjab Breweries etc. and a small portion to others. The issue involved in the present appeal is the valuation of bottles utilised by Jagatjit Industries. Originally these goods had discharged duty based on the value of comparable goods manufactured and sold by the appellants. 2. The impugned order has demanded differential duty on the ground that value was required to be fixed under Rule 4(b)(ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules based on the cost of manufacture and manufacturing profit, while the appellant s contend that the valuation originally done at the value of comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in weight. He has, therefore held that there was no price available for comparison in respect of this category of goods and has held that the assessable value is to be determined based on costing. 3. The second category relates to bottles which are consumed by Jagatjit Industries and also sold to Franchisees of Jagatjit Industries. These bottles are identical and are used both by M/s. Jagatjit Industries and their Franchisees for the bottling of same goods, 750 ml. Aristocrat Triangular, 350 ml. Aristocrat Premium liquors. The appellants submitted that the products being identical and Franchisees being independent public limited companies, the sale price to the Franchisees should be treated as the normal price and applied for the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de duty. With regard to these sales, the appellants have also claimed exemption under Notification No. 217/86 as the goods were used for further manufacture as input. The Commissioner has rejected this claim also on the ground that the jars had not been used within the factory of the manufacturer but in a different unit. The appellants have submitted that this finding is erroneous inasmuch as Notification No. 217/86 was available even if the inputs are used in any other factory of the manufacturer. 5. In addition to their submission that value of captively consumed goods should be fixed based on the value of comparable goods only, and cost of production shall be taken as the basis only where such comparable values are not available, they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder and submitted that the impugned order has explained in detail as to why the comparable values do not exist in the instant case. He also submitted the sales to Franchisees are not sales at normal price. He also submitted that the appellants had committed fraud by showing sales to Ashok Sales Agency while the goods were actually routed through them to Jagatjit Industries. 8. We have perused the records and have considered the rival submissions. We find that under Rule 6(b)(i) of valuation rules, where excisable goods are used or consumed by the manufacturer or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be based on the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in part and partly sold to other bottlers. The Commissioner, therefore, should have fixed the assessable value after making necessary adjustments, if it was found that there was difference between the goods consumed by the appellants and the goods sold to bottlers. Therefore, the adjudication order has to be held to be erroneous in having discarded the value of comparable goods. Further, it is on record that the bottles were comparable. We derive support from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Knit Foulds Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 470. This was a case where a manufacturer had filed two price lists, one relating to goods sold to the general public and another relating to goods captively consumed. Price list relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction was not called for with reference to these bottles. 10 With regard to category three goods, where sale prices to Ashok Sales Agency have been rejected for comparison, the appellants submission is that these goods were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 217/86-C.E. or, in the alternative, Modvat credit. They submit that, in that view of the matter, there could be no allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. They have submitted that the adjudicating authority was in error in denying the exemption on the ground that the goods were not used in the same factory of the manufacturer inasmuch as the notification specifically allowed exemptions even if the input was used in another unit of the manufacturer. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
