9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the entire period involved in the present case, the cost of art work provided by the customers to the appellant is includable in the assessable value. As regards the use of 335 drawings out of 2200 drawings for manufacture of goods, we are of the view that if all the drawings were not used, the value of 2200 drawings cannot be included in the manufacture of goods, which were claimed to have been manufactured out of 335 drawings. As regards the limitation, both the lower authorities have not properly examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1504/06 - A/86502/17/EB - Dated:- 24-3-2017 - M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rna Hirandagi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the period involved is 01/03/98 to 31/12/2001. As regards the inclusion of charges of drawings and designs supplied by the customers free of cost is includable in the assessable value only from 01/07/2000 when a specific provision was brought in the Central Excise provision under Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Therefore, prior to 01/07/2000 there was no specific provision for inclusion of such element in the assessable value. In this support, she placed reliance on the following judgement: a) Mazgaon Dock Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 3 (SC) b) Sterlite Industries Ltd. 2005 (189) ELT 329 (T) c) Mazgaon Dock Ltd. 2006 (206) ELT 935 (T) d) CBEC Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the impugned order. He placed reliance of the following decision: a) Mutual Industries Ltd. 2000 (117) ELT 578 (Tri) b) Prayas Castings Ltd. 2006 (199) ELT191 (Tri-Mum) c) Indo Berolina Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (330) ELt 739 (Tri-Mum) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. We find that as regards the design and development charges for art work charged by TPCIL to the customers and such art work was used by Tetra Pack India Ltd. is clearly includable in the assessable value of the appellant, as per the clear provision made in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 w.e.f 01/07/2000. As regards the previous period also such cost of design work provided by the customers to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperly verified by the lower authorities. 5.3 As regards the third point, i.e. cum-duty benefit, it has been settled in various judgements as cited by the learned Counsel that while determining the duty, the cum duty benefits should be extended to the assessee. Therefore, there is no reason why not to give the benefit of cum duty price to the appellants. As per the settled law, the adjudicating authority has failed in not giving the cum duty benefit to the appellants. 5.4 As regards the limitation, we have observed that both the lower authorities have not properly examined the fact whether there is a suppression of facts or otherwise. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was also not considered properly. 6. Therefore, on all the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
