9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 89 to 1992 for approval in respect of parts of Radio Recorders, Radio Receivers and Combination Sets, Parts of Tape Recorders and Colour Television Sets and Tape Deck Mechanisms. The said price lists continued to remain pending approval. However, a show cause notice dated 11-1-93 was issued to the appellant alleging contravention of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inasmuch as the appellant was alleged to have failed to submit sale bills etc. as documentary proof in support of their claim for deduction and the appellant was directed to submit the same within 30 days failing which the price lists would be finalised without allowing any deduction as claimed and by adding the profit margin as per the appellant s previous year s annual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Part II instead of Part-I as is done here and then the price (including additional consideration like service charges, if any or in the form of discount return, if any, at which service centres/ dealers are selling the goods will be the assessable value. (ii) 12 price lists have been approved as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 i.e. as per the best judgment which should have been in Part-VII price list form. Again the said application of Rule 7 should be considered when the approval is not possible as per Central Excise Valuation Rules, 4, 5 or 6. The matter has not been discussed by the Assistant Collector in the said Adjudication Order. 2.2 On receipt of a notice dated 29-1-96 from Superintendent of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Advocate, that there was no allegation in the Show Cause Notice regarding service centres/dealers of the appellant company being its related persons nor was the same a subject matter of dispute in finalisation of the concerned price lists and as such the question of the concerned Assistant Collector discussing this issue while passing the Adjudication Order could not and did not arise. He pleaded that the said issue is beyond the scope of the proceedings leading to passing of the Adjudication Order as well as the appeal proceedings arising therefrom. He further pleads that as no ground has been disclosed either in the order of the Commissioner under Section 35E(2) ibid or in the application as to how and on basis it could even be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
