2012 (7) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (A.R)   Per: S.S. Kang   1. Heard both sides.   2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).   3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Philips brand steam irons falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty on the plastic parts which also include the mould amortization cost. However, mould amortization cost is not recovered from the appellant as the costs were directly recovered from M/s PDAP. Appellants are manufacturing goods out of the plastic moulds which were solely supplied to M/s PDAP on payment of appropriate duty. As the duty has been paid after taking into consideration of the mould am .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payment of duty. While arriving at the assessable value of the goods cleared to M/s DPAP the mould amortization cost is not taken into consideration by appellant. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the Revenue that the same is additional consideration. Hence we find no infirmity in the impugned order.   8. The appeal is dismissed.   (Operative part pronounced in Court.) &nb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X