9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses. Even though the Tribunal has accepted the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), proceeded on a wrong premise and recorded a new and undecided fact at the instance of the counsel for the assessee to dismiss the appeal filed by the Department. - order passed by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the proceedings in issue or material available on record. Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1633 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2015 - R. Sudhakar And S. Vimala,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. E. Vijay Anand Standing Counsel For the Respondents : No appearance JUDGMENT (Judgment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: Further verification conducted revealed that M/s. SDL are realising certain amounts towards manufacture and supply of excisable goods as per purchase orders issued by various customers from time to time. Over and above such purchase orders, M/s. SDL have also entered into agreements with various customers for compensation against design, drawing and development charges of dies and tools used for goods manufactured and supplied by them. Certain such agreements also relates to design, drawing and development charges of dies and tools required for manufacture and supply of goods contracted between them. A cross verification of the invoices raised by M/s.SDL along with relevant purchase orders shows that M/s.SDL have discharged duty liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable value. The goods under reference falling under various chapters during the relevant period are liable to duty at the rate of 15% adv. Hence the differential duty payable on the additional amount realised by M/s.SDL works to be BED ₹ 9,56,666.40 Consequently, the show cause notice proposed to demand duty as follows: Now. therefore, M/s.SDL are hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise (P V), Chennai - II Commissionerate No.473, M.H.U. Complex, Nandhanam, Chennai - 35 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice as to why:- (1) the differential duty amount of ₹ 9,56,666.40 detailed in Annexure 'A' to this notice should not be demanded under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that if there were some discrepancy in the Chartered Engineer's certificate, the same could not be rejected in its entirety. He placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Mangal Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and came to hold that the adjudication proceeds on the basis to demand duty on the moulds without taking into consideration the amortization of cost of moulds. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reads as follows: Further I agree that there is no possibility to demand duty on moulds, when the issue is regarding amortization of cost of moulds and inclusion of such amortization cost on the value of components. When the proceedings is for demanding dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that this appeal was admitted by this Court on two issues. The primary issue that arise for consideration is whether the Tribunal could pass an order based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee that the actual amortised cost has been included in the value of the components during the relevant period, which is not supported by any material. It is seen that the Tribunal has merely recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Tribunal appears to be based on conjectures and surmises. Even though the Tribunal has accepted the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), proceeded on a wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
