9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efundable amount from the customers as security deposit in respect of the reusable containers used in the manufacture of bottled water and Revenue wants to add this amount to the assessable value to the MRP. The demands were contested by the applicants on the ground that the cost of reusable containers has been amortized and included in the MRP. Therefore, the demands are not sustainable. 4. The matter came upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide final order dated 20.01.2011 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority by making the following observation: "6. In Circular dated 27.02.2003 ibid, the Board clarified that the above instructions would equally apply to goods assessed under section 4A also. In other words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e me and information and explanation given to me by M/s Parle (Exports) Limited". The learned Commissioner apparently accepted these certificates to be conclusive evidence of amortization of the cost of empty containers and its inclusion in the MRP of the 'Bisleri' water. There is no indication, in the impugned orders, that any of the relevant records and documents having been independently verified by the Commissioner. It was incumbent upon him to have an audit of accounts under section 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 done to ascertain whether the fact certified by the Chartered Accountant was correct. In our view, the Board's Circulars impliedly made it incumbent upon the Commissioner to take all measures within his command to ensure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity and the impugned demand was confirmed. The contention is that as the impugned order has been passed in violation of the direction of the Tribunal, the same is not sustainable. 7. Revenue submitted that the adjudicating authority specifically asked for the evidence in support of their claim. However, the applicants failed to produce the same. The Revenue relies on para 32 of the adjudication order whereby the adjudicating authority noted the fact that the applicants were called upon to furnish all the necessary evidence and material and inclusion of the cost of reusable containers in the MRP vide letter dated 1.11.11. As the applicants had not produced the evidence, therefore the impugned order is rightly passed. 8. In response to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
