9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. (2003 (4) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the appellant. So far the issue of excess finished goods found, we find that the same is insignificant being less than 2% of the total stock available and further there is no allegation of finding of any clandestine removal or activity on the part of the appellant. Moreover the stock of the day was taken on estimate basis. - Decided in favour of the appellant. - Appeal No. E/3861/2006 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2015 - Anil Choudhary, Member (J) And Raju, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Kapil Vaish, CA For the Respondent : Shri M K Mall, AC (AR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ops Health Products Ltd. And M/s Crops Chemical Products Ltd. It appeared to the Revenue that recovery of ₹ 3 per kg is an additional consideration in terms of money collected from buyers towards sale of product and should form part of the assessable value. Based on the above investigation, the statement of Mr. Gupta was recorded, who stated that they supply Sevidol to these buyers and these supplies are generally made through their branch office at Ludhiana and some time directly from the factory at Lucknow. He admitted the collection @ ₹ 3 per kg as mentioned herein above. Mr. Gupta further mentioned that sevidol is a brand name of M/s Rohne-Poulenc Agrochemicals (India) Ltd. And they pay royalty to them for using their brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as the appellant had already debited the amount during investigation. So far recovery of ₹ 835/- on modvatable raw material, it was observed that no further action is required as the appellant is not contesting and debited the amount before issue of show-cause notice. Amount of ₹ 42,318.40 was confirmed as duty on the amount of royalty for the year 1999-00 and ₹ 40,615.20 on the freight collected for the two financial year, total ₹ 82,934/-. Further equal amount of penalty of ₹ 82,934/- was imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q for contravention of rules 9, 173F 173G along with interest on the duty amount. 2.3 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise - 2003 (155) ELT 8 (SC) where in similar facts and circumstances, it was held that where price remains uniform or constant all over the country, value for purpose of excise does not change merely because the definition of term place of removal is extended vide newly added Section 4(ia) of the Central Excise Act. Normal price remains the price at the time of delivery and at the place of removal. It is also held that equalized freight of transportation from factor}' to the depot is not includible in the assessable value where a manufacturer includes equalized freight in the price of the goods and sells goods all over the country at a uniform price. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, we find that so far the charging of duty on freight component recovered by debit note, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. (supra) and accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the appellant. 5.1 So far the issue of excess finished goods found, we find that the same is insignificant being less than 2% of the total stock available and further there is no allegation of finding of any clandestine removal or activity on the part of the appellant. Moreover the stock of the day was taken on estimate basis. In view of the matter, this is also decided in favour of the appellant. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
