9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... improve the quality of the final product i.e cigarette filter rods, supplied to M/s. VST Industries, Hyderabad. The appellant had availed Modvat credit and had capitalized the value of the Carding machine, 50% of the cost of the machine viz. Rs. 6,10,056/- was paid by M/s. VST Industries to the appellant. It is the contention of the Revenue that the above amount is an additional consideration and is liable to be charged to duty @ 16% ad valorem. Aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, the appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved over the impugned order, the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri M. Neelakantan, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b) Pasupathi Acrylon Ltd. - 1998 (102) E.L.T. A152. (iv) When the duty has been paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice (Duty has been paid on 10-7-2000 and the Show Cause Notice has been issued on 16-8-2001), no penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB can be levied as held by the following decisions: 1. Vora Associates - 2006 (198) E.L.T. A174 (SC) 2. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam - 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.) - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Bangalore) 3. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 Mumbai 4. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 Kar 5. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri) 6. Shri Ram Aluminium P. Ltd. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants have stated that M/s. VST Industries financed 50% of the cost of the carding machine to help the appellants to improve the quality of the products supplied to them. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that this payment is in the nature of business transaction and not in the nature of a charity. He has also observed that It is certain that M/s. VST would have in some form or other recovered this investment from the appellant and this can only be in terms of a favourable pricing of the appellant s product viz. filter rods. But the appellants contention is that this amount is not paid in relation to the sale of the goods. Further, the sale price has not changed on account of the payment of advance by M/s. VST. We find that the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
