9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - along with interest and equivalent penalty is not sustainable. As regards the dispute regarding including the amortized cost of moulds in the assessable value of the goods, the appellant themselves conceded that the same would be includible. However, the dispute in this regard is over the method of calculation. In our view, the amortized cost must be calculated in accordance with the Board's Circular No. 170/4/96CX dated 23/1/1996, i.e., the cost of the mould divided by the total quantum of production which can be made by using that moulded multiplied by the number of pieces manufactured as cleared. There is no dispute that if the amortized cost is calculated in this manner, out of the duty demand of ₹ 7464/- and the duty demand of ₹ 2936/- can be confirmed. Accordingly, the duty demand of ₹ 2936/- is confirmed and the rest of the demand on this count is set aside. Re-moulding charges are for the expenses incurred for re-processing and re-manufacturing of the goods and the same cannot be treated as consideration for the goods earlier cleared on sale. In view of this, we hold re-moulding charges are not includible in the assessable value and as such the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to factory of PPPL for re-manufacture have no connectivity with the duty paying documents supplied by them with the returned goods and that he cannot say as to whether the goods returned by them to the factory of PPPL for re-manufacture were those received from PPPL. On the basis of this statement, the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers were of the view that in past also, the appellant company - PPPL have wrongly taken the CENVAT Credit under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of the goods which in their records are shown to have been received as returned/defective goods for being re-made or re-manufactured . The CENVAT Credit demand of ₹ 7,17,879/- is on this basis out of which the amount of ₹ 51,160/- has already been reversed by the appellant company. 4. It was found that the return/defective furniture were being cut into pieces, powdered and then were being used for making plastic moulded furniture which was being cleared to M/s. Wim Plast Limited and in respect of such clearances of moulded furniture made out of return furniture, the appellant company were charging re-moulding charges. The departmental officers were of the view that re-mou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when his statement was recorded; that the statement of Shri Harinder Kumar Garg, Manager of the appellant company had been recorded on 27/08/2002 and he was also not confronted with the statement dated 23/7/2002 of Shri G.M. Bhandari; that in view of this the statement dated 23/7/2002 of Shri G.M. Bhandari stating that old and used furniture were being returned to the appellant company for being re-made under the gauze of defective goods cannot be treated as correct statement, more so, when in course of the adjudication proceedings, Shri G.M. Bhandari had not been cross-examined. He pleaded that just because at the time of officers' visit to the factory on 2/7/2002 the description of the returned goods under Rule 16 was not matching with the invoices, it cannot be presumed that this was so during t he previous period also. With regard to the inclusion of re-moulding charges on the assessment value, Shri O.P. Aggarwal, stated that the same is not an additional consideration for the goods sold but is an amount charged for the expenses incurred by the appellant on re-manufacturing and hence re-moulding charges are not includible in the assessment value of the goods. Shri O.P. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arkings on it had been manufactured in year 1999, during that period the appellant's factory had not come into existence and had not started production. In view of this the CENVAT Credit duty demand of ₹ 51,160/- has to be upheld. This amount has already been paid by the appellant. As regards the CENVAT Credit demand of the balance amount of ₹ 6,66,719/-, this demand is in respect of the consignment of defective plastic moulded furniture received in past and this CENVAT Credit had been taken under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department's contention based on the statement dated 23/7/2002 of Shri G.M. Bhandari is that in past also, they had received only the old and used furniture and not the goods manufactured by the appellant company and cleared on payment of duty. However, it is seen that this statement of Shri G.M. Bhandari is not corroborated any other evidence and not only this, when the statements of Shri K.K. Maheshwari, Director of the appellant company and of Shri Harinder Kumar Garg, Manager of the appellant company were recorded they were also not confronted with this statement. In view of this we hold that merely on the basis of sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
