9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 78,301/- upon the appellants. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 52A and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant is aggrieved by the duty demand and the penalties. 2. The dispute under adjudication in the impugned order related to valuation of the aerated waters manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period March, 1994 to March, 1995. The show cause notice was issued on 28-7-1995. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellants were removing the goods from their factory to an adjacent godown and distributing the goods from there. There was no sale at the factory gate. From their sale price, the appellants claimed deductions towards excise, sales tax, Trptn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Godown is included in the rent for the factory premises. The learned Counsel also submitted that in any case, inclusion of about Rs. 31 lakhs was illegal as that amount related to depreciation for bottles. The learned Counsel submitted that the bottles being durable containers, their cost is not includible in the assessment value of the aerated water in view of the provisions contained in the Section 4(d)(i) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submitted that the order is not right in holding that the cost of the employees at Godown should be included in the assessable value of the goods. He stated that the employees are engaged in loading and unloading and handling of goods in the Godown. The cost of such operations are not liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-list and had indicated the deductions, the price-list never indicated that the goods were not being sold ex-factory. The appellants also suppressed the fact that costs of maintaining the Godown such as employee cost, cost of electricity and water etc., at the Godown were being claimed as permissible deduction. 6. It is settled law in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bombay Tyre International and MRF that all costs incurred by the manufacturer including the cost of maintenance of depots form part of manufacturing cost and no deduction from the sale price is required to be made on account of such costs for reaching the assessable value of excisable goods. Therefore, no objection could validly be taken to the incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of depot, the cost of the staff at the depot etc. Nor did they intimate the Central Excise authorities that there was no ex-factory sale of the goods. There is also no substance in the appellants claim that full facts about the appellants manufacturing and markets costs were known to the Central Excise authorities through previous proceedings. Aerated water became liable to ad valorem duty only w.e.f. 1st March, 1994. During the previous period goods were subject to duty at specific rate. The question of valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act did not arise, prior to 1-3-1994 and the price list filed by the appellant did not mention that cost of godown was being excluded. Therefore, we hold that proviso to Section 11A is att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
