9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , manholes for blast furnace complex, etc, falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were manufacturing these machinery/machinery parts for their various customers, namely, M/s. Siemens VAI Metals Technologies Pvt. Ltd., M/s. SMS India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Danieli India Ltd out of the drawings and designs supplied by them. The period of dispute is from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 and the point of dispute is as to whether or not value of the drawings and designs supplied by the Customers of the appellant are to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant. The department was of the view that the value of the drawings and designs supplied by the appellants customers on the basis of which the machi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant sought the adjournment of hearing to April, 2014 as their Director was under medical treatment but the Commissioner without granting any further opportunity for hearing, decided the matter ex-parte by treating the date 12/3/2014 as the date of hearing, while the hearing on 12/3/2014 had been adjourned to 20/3/2014; that the impugned order is not correct even on the merits as the cost of drawings and designs has been adopted as 10% of the sale price of the goods, that in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, it is only the value of drawings used in the production of the goods or the value of engineering, development, art work, design work and plans and sketches undertaken elsewhere than in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s letter dated 6/2/2014 under which the relied upon documents had been supplied. Thereafter under letter no. V (Ch84) 15-373/ADC/Bhi-II/2012/ADJ/3283 dated 28/2/2014 the appellant was informed that the hearing is adjourned to 12/3/3014. However, on the same day, another letter bearing no. V(Ch84)15-373/ADC/BhI-I/2012/ADJ/3314 dated 28/2/2014 was issued to the appellant informing him that the personal hearing has been adjourned to 20/3/2014. The implication of the second letter would be that hearing earlier fixed on 12/3/2014 has been adjourned to 20/3/2014 and hence, the date of hearing fixed on 12/3/2014 cannot be taken as the opportunity for personal hearing and as such the appellant has given only two opportunities for personal hearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
