9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving Products (hereinafter referred to as ISPL) who pursuant to an agreement dated 27-2-1991 with the Party supplied them for assembly and packing the products i.e. razors and razor blades on job work basis. The said goods after assembly/packing were stock transferred to ISPL and duty was paid based on costing supported by a C.A. certificate. 2. As the price of the goods did not include several components enriching its value, assessments were made provisionally under Rule 9(B) on a Bond of Rs. 25,000/- and since the Bond amount was insufficient 18 SCN were issued to the Party. Two more SCN were issued demanding duty on the Advertisement cost incurred by M/s. ISPL on the products manufactured by the Party on their behalf. The 18 SCN were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial i.e razor blade and marketing them. The goods i.e. razor and cartridges in semi finished or CKD condition are sent for packing to job workers and therefore the price at which ISPL has sold the goods should be the assessable value. He also found that in the case of Pawan Biscuits Co. - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 595 (T) dealt with the same issue and the terms and conditions entered into by ISPL and the party are almost the same as in Pawan Biscuits case and therefore Ujagar Prints decision of the S.C. would not apply, and confirmed the duty demanded on the basis of consumer price less sales tax and excise duty for 17 SCN and in the 18th SCN, since it pertained to period of October, 1996, he applied the amended Section 4 and deemed the ex-depot pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case from the ratio laid by the Court in the aforesaid two decisions of Ujagar Prints case . Therefore, the basis of Commissioner findings and confirmation of demands does not survive. The order cannot be upheld. (b) As regard the demand on Advertisement charges confirmed, without considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of Philips India Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.) cannot be upheld. (c) When we find no reason to uphold the determination of any demand, the order is required to be set aside. Before, we part with the same, we would like to observe that the Commissioner's finding that primarily the party is liable for duty and its discharge could be treated to be over, if proof of payment by ISPL on their behalf is shown, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
