9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was declared by them as Rs. 1107.43, the value of the tank manufactured out of raw materials supplied by M/s. TELCO was declared at Rs. 580/- which represents the job charges + the value of the purchased material used by them in the manufacture of the said tank. 1.2. The Revenue vide their impugned orders has held that the value of CR sheets provided free of cost by M/s. TELCO under the provision of Rule 57F have to be included in the value of the fuel tank manufactured by the appellants on their behalf. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 3,24,697.92 has been confirmed against the appellant for the period 12-3-1992 to 17-8-1992. The show cause notice for the above period was issued on 17-1-1994. 2. The contention of Shri Dinesh Jha, ld. consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f cost from M/s. TELCO. Even in the purchase order, though this fact is mentioned, but there is nothing to show that the value of the sheets is not being included in the value of the final product. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order be upheld. 4. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions, made by both the sides we find that it is settled law that the value of free supplied items has to be included in the assessable value of the final product. The above proposition of law stands confirmed by the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints v. U.O.I. - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 671 (S.C.). As regards limitation we find that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly reveals that CR sheets are to be supplied free of cost by M/s. TELCO. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the appellants suppressed or mis-stated with an intention to evade payment of duty. 5. We also find force in the appellants submissions that in case the duty on the higher value would have been paid by them, M/s. TELCO could have claimed Modvat credit of the same. In such a case result would have been Revenue neutral. In a situation like this it is difficult to hold that the appellants have indulged in lower declaration of assessable value with an intention to evade payment of duty. This was also the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in the case of R.H. Indus. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 798 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) RLT 848 referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
