9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and certain documents were recovered for further verification and investigation. It was noticed by the Officers that the assessee was filing price declarations under Rule 173C of Central Excise rules 1944 basing the assessable value on the costing method following the guidelines as laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. The said declarations were filed by the assessees for the products of Proctor Gamble on 19-9-96 and for the products of Ranbaxy on 23-6-1995 and continued to adopt the same assessable value till 6-11-98 without any change. It was noticed by the Officers that the cost of raw material and packing material has increased, despite that the appellant assessees failed to file revised price declarations and discharged appropriate duty. Show cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty amount of Rs. 8,69,745/- Rs. 5,67,460/- for Ranbaxy Products and Rs. 3,02,285/- for Proctor Gamble Products with interest and for levy of penalty. During the pendency of the proceedings, appellant assessee discharged the entire amount of Rs 5,67,460/- demanded in the show cause notice for the Ranbaxy Products but for Proctor Gamble products they discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE Meerut - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) Learned counsel alternatively would submit that assuming but not accepting that cost accounting data would be applicable for the purpose of arriving at assessable value of P G products, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in including the cost of other expenses and interest incurred by the raw material supplier for arriving at the assessable value, according to him is not correct as Cost Accounting Standard-4 (CAS-4) does not include these two elements for arriving at the cost of production. It is his submission that the assessable value as per the law settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints has been discharged by the appellants. Hence, no further demand survives. It is his further submission that the interest and financial charges needs to be reduced from the cost of production. It is his further submission that the demand is barred by limitation in as much as that the show cause notice is issued on 26-3-99 for the period October, 96 to June, 97. 4. It is his further submission that there is no intention to evade any payment of duty as the appellant assessee is a job worker .and will get reimbursed for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e valuation of the products manufactured on job work basis by the appellant for M/s. P G and M/s. Ranbaxy. It is undisputed that the appellant for the relevant period i.e. October, 96 to June, 97 discharged, the duty liability on the value of the goods as was declared by him in the year- 95 and has not considered the enhanced value of the input cost. It is also undisputed that the appellant assessee in this case is not contesting the duty liability on the products which are manufactured and cleared by them on job work basis for the products for M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. In view of this, duty liability as has been confirmed by the Lower Authorities on the products manufactured on job work basis for M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories is upheld. As regards the duty liability on the goods manufactured and cleared for P G, on job work basis, we find that the assessee himself has made a submission before the adjudicating authority that the average price as proposed in the show cause notice is incorrect and the same product is manufactured by P G for which cost audit data is available and that may be considered. The assessee, having himself suggested that cost audit data be considered for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of formulation , we find that the other expenses are included for arriving at cost of production in Annexure A . In our considered view this cost of other expenses needs to be included for arriving at the correct assessable value of the products cleared by the appellant in respect of P G. We hold that the other expense cost needs to be included in the assessable value for arriving at the correct assessable value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellant to P G under job work basis. Since we have held that the interest cost is not to be included but the other expenses cost needs to be included in the assessable value, the quantification of the demand of the duty needs to be re-worked out by the lower authorities. For the limited purpose of quantification of duty after inclusion of cost of other expenses in the assessable value and deleting the cost of interest from the assessable value, we remand the matter for the limited purpose to the adjudicating authority to re-work out the duty liability in respect of goods manufactured by P G. 9. As regards the penalty we find that the provisions of Section 11AC had been invoked in the show cause notice alleging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
