9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure textile spindles which fell under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time. For valuation of their goods the appellants opted for the procedure as set out in Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. The said notification provided an alternative mode of valuation under which a manufacturer whose goods were classifiable under item 68 of the C.E.T. could determine his duty on the basis of the invoice price (excluding the duty. and local taxes, if any, included in such price). The said notification laid down, inter alia, that it was optional for an assessee to get his goods valued with reference to the notification or as provided for under section 4(a) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. It is pertinent to mention here that the exemption notification was optional in character. It was absolutely the discretion of an assessee to opt for being governed by the mode of valuation under the notification or under the normal provisions of Section 4(a) of the Act. Further, there was again the desertion available to the assessee to opt out of the exemption notification by giving 7 days notice to the Proper officer. Thus, when an assessee opted to be governed by the provisions of the notification it was purely at his discretion and not under any compulsion or statutory obligation. The endeavour now being made by the learned Counsel is that some of the deductions which have been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to the Superintendent of Central Excise. We are, therefore, of the clear view that some of the concepts germane to valuation under Section 4(a) of the Act cannot be imported into the exemption notification because this would enlarge the scope of invoice price basis which permits deduction of only two elements, namely, excise duty and local taxes, if any. 6. The learned Representative of the respondent has submitted that even if for the sake of the argument the submission of the learned Counsel were accepted, the element of secondary packing (which is subject matter of dispute in the present case), cannot be excluded from the assessable value as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.)]. We do not th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
