9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants states that there are four issues involved in this case. 3.The first issue relates to valuation of the impugned goods taken for captive consumption. The duty demand relating to this issue is Rs. 7,85,230/-. We find that the Adjudicating Commissioner has held that the amounts reflected in the debit notes on which Excise Duty has not been paid has to be included in the invoice price as the sum of the two would represent the value of the impugned goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975. The ld. Advocate claims that the amount reflected in the debit note represents abnormal expenditure which is not liable to be included in the assessable value. In our view, the said contention has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retained by the appellants and other goods were manufactured using the same, then there would have been a case for apportioning the value of designs over all the goods produced using the same. Since that is not the case, we are of the view that the Adjudicating Commissioner is correct in including the entire value of the designs and drawings in such cases while arriving at assessable value of the impugned goods. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 3,65,300/- is confirmed. 5.The third issue relates to addition of notional interest on advances. We find that the Department has not shown as to how the prices were influenced by the advances taken and there is no comparison to bring out any evidence that the same goods have been sold to the buyers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh the assessable value may be higher. In particular, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the value of wheelsets supplied by Railways not having been included in the cost of wagons and have held that under the impugned Notification No. 120/75-C.E. assessment on the basis of invoice value which excludes the cost of wheelsets is permissible. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we have no option but to set aside the demand of Rs. 6,77,305.92 confirmed by the Original Authority against the appellants. 7.As regards the penalty imposed, we find in the original proceedings the penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh was imposed whereas in the remand proceedings a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been imposed. The ld. Advocate argues tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
