9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act. 2. Shri Ramesh Singh, learned Advocate, mentioned that the Appellants, besides manufacturing detergent washing powder and acid slurry on their own account, manufacture acid slurry on job work basis out of the raw materials supplied by M/s. Pioneer Detergents; that the principal manufacturer furnished them two certificates dated 12-11-1997 and 21-4-1998 of the Chartered Accountant which were given by them to the Range Superintendent of Central Excise; that they cleared the acid slurry manufactured on job work basis on payment of duty at the value as per the said Certificate; that the RT 12 returns filed by them were finally assessed without any objection by the Range Superintendent, that after visit of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... choice. Regarding the charge about non-consideration of actual freight to the transporter, the learned Advocate submitted that the Principal manufacturer has actually paid the transport charges @ Rs. 1100/- P.M.T. instead of Rs. 1350/-PMT; that no evidence has been brought on record for non-consideration of actual cost of transportation; Regarding actual price of Oleum, he mentioned that there was a specific understanding between the supplier of Oleum and M/s. Pioneer Detergents for proving a 15% as quantity and early payment discount; that merely not showing the discount in the invoice can not debar allowing such deductions when debit note was issued to the supplier of Oleum; that Shri R. K. Mehta, Executive Director of M/s. Sahibabad Chem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings as contained in both the orders passed by the lower authorities and emphasised the fact that the Appellants manufacture acid slurry for M/s. Pioneer Detergents who in turn are manufacturing detergent powder of Nirma brand for the Appellants; that the fact of retaining the spent acid by the Appellants has not been denied by them; that this is nothing but additional consideration to the Appellants which should form part of the assessable value. He also mentioned that the raw materials used in the manufacture of acid slurry were being supplied by the manufacturer to M/s. Nirma Ltd. on account of M/s. Pioneer Detergent; that this fact has been admitted by Shri Shyam Sunder Jhanwar, Partner of Appellant No. 1; that the transporter had shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellants from the manufacturer and as such the cost of transportation charges was known to the Appellants. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the transporter had agreed subsequently to reduce the cost of transport from Rs. 1350/- to Rs. 1100/- per MT. Neither any agreement with the Transporter nor any affidavit from him to this effect has been brought on record. In view of this fact and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints, the cost shown in the challans of transport company has to be taken into account for determining the assessable value. Similarly, the appellants have been allowed by M/s. Pioneer Detergent to retain the spent acid which is sold by them and sale proceeds are retained by them. We agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
