9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III, passed an order dated 17th July, 1997, confirming the demand of excise duty amounting to Rs.54,30,713/- and imposing a penalty of Rs.41,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also directing the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 20% under Section 11-AB of the Act, on delayed payment of duty for the relevant periods, saying that the plastic caps, which were put on the plastic tubes, were not included in the assessable value of the plastic tubes manufactured and cleared from the factory of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of duty and modified the penalty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tubes and were not part of the manufacturing process of Metal Box of India Limited, such caps have to be treated separately while charging the weight based portion of the duty of excise on aluminium as envisaged in Item 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. He submitted that although an appeal was preferred against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal to this Court, the appeal was dismissed on 20th November, 1989, as reported in Collector versus Metal Box of India Ltd. [1990 (45) E.L.T. A33(S.C.). He submitted that in Col. Tubes (P) Ltd. versus Collector [1994 (72) E.L.T. 342 (Tribunal)], the Col. Tubes (P) Ltd., which was manufacturing aluminium collapsible tubes, was clearing its product from its factory along with a plastic cap manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c caps were not manufactured in the factory of the appellant and were supplied by Colgate and, therefore, were not an integral part of the tube and could not be includible in the assessable value of the tubes. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and we find that the consistent view of the Tribunal as well as this Court has been that if the caps are manufactured separately and not in the same factory in which the tubes are being manufactured, the caps cannot form integral part of the assessable value of the tubes, manufactured and cleared from the factory. This is the view that the Tribunal and this Court have been taking in Metal Box of India Ltd., Calcutta (supra) and Col. Tubes (P) Ltd. (supra). Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
