9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et Body and Pump Barrel falling under Chapter 84139190 of CETA, 1985. The appellants are also supplying pump barrel to M/s. Bosch who placed an order on the appellant to manufacture a tool for R.12 lakhs which the appellant manufactured and amortised at the cost of Rs. 60 per piece and added it to the value of pump barrel and discharged the duty thereon as the tool was retained by them and used in the manufacture of pump barrel supplied to M/s. Bosch. Notwithstanding the amortisation while paying duty for the month of September, 2008, the appellant has erroneously added the tool cost of Rs. 12 lakhs to the value of the clearances for the month of September, 2008 and paid amount also which was not required as the tool was not rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er piece and added it to the value of pump barrel and discharged duty thereon as the tool was retained by the appellant and used in the manufacture of pump barrel supplied to M/s.Bosch. He further submitted that as per the Central Excise Valuation Rule, the tool cost has been amortised and duty has been discharged on the value of the pump barrel after adding the tool cost to the value of the pump barrel and this fact has been verified by the Department and found to be correct. But the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly observed that the original authority has not discussed the aspect of basis of method of amortisation of tools and fixtures. He further submitted that the Commissioner failed to appreciate that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gible for refund of Rs. 173,040/- has observed that the assessee has wrongly paid this duty by oversight by including the value of aforesaid tool cost while debiting the duty for the month of September 2008. The original authority has also got it verified from the jurisdictional Range Officer and confirmed the same and thereafter sanctioned the refund by way of recredit in CENVAT credit account. Whereas the Commissioner(Appeals) in the appeal has totally misconstruing the facts and has raised the issue which was not before the adjudicating authority as there is no dispute with regard to amortisation of the tool cost. Therefore keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the view that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
