9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The impugned order demanded Rs. 68,68,433/- towards duty and cess from the appellants on their product (car) cleared to their dealers during the period April - December 2003. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15.00 lakhs on them. The present application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of these amounts. 2. After hearing both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the appellants has claimed to have a better case this time by relying on the Tribunal s decision in Volvo India Limited v. CCE, Bangalore - 2005 (100) ECC 115 (Tri.). This new plea calls for a re-look at the facts of the instant case. The demand of duty and cess in this case is on account of inclusion of what are called optional warranty charges collected from customers, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the service agreement, that the provision for optional service was not a condition of sale and, therefore, the cost of such service was not to be included in the assessable value of the goods. Obviously, in the said case, the Tribunal examined the service agreement and took the above view. In the present case, what is to be ascertained is whether optional warranty charges are includible in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pees twenty lakhs only) [approximately 35% of the total amount of duty and cess demanded] within six weeks and report compliance on 27th April 2006. Having regard to the high stake involved in the case, the appeal will be heard along with E/1132/2003 on an early date. Accordingly, both the appeals will be heard on 12th June 2006, subject to predeposit directed herein. (Dictated and pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
