9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that appellants are the manufacturers of Safety valves, Flow meters and spares for the customers, falling under Chapter heading 8481.99, 8493.00 and 9026.00 respectively. For the goods supplied to their customers, they were supplying the spares within the warranty period as free of cost. While the appellants had filed their price-list, got it approved and cleared the goods in terms of cost construction under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, the Department had adopted Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, 1975 to determine the assessable value in the present case holding that the assessee had failed to include elements such as travelling expenses, royalty charges, machinery lease rent and interest/finance charges which formed part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had prevented the Department from issuing the show cause notice within six months. Hence he pleaded that the extended period invoked in the present case is not sustainable in law. Ld. Counsel further stated that while the appellant had uniformly adopted the notional profit of 10% as required under the Valuation Rules, even according to the Department, the profit margin that should have been adopted is only 2.1% and 8.4% respectively. He submitted that if there was any intention to evade payment of duty, the appellant would not have declared a higher profit margin. He further contended that even on merits the impugned order is contrary to law as the ld. Commissioner has failed to appreciate that post-manufacturing expenses, such as travellin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been proved and hence the Commissioner has rightly invoked the larger period in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further contended that there is no necessity to go in for a notional figure of profit margin in order to arrive at the assessable value. Hence, he submitted that both on limitation as well as on merits, the appellant do not have any case and as such, their appeal may be rejected. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of photo copy of the price list No. 20/92-93 effective from 21st Jan. 1993 (which is available on record) filed in Part VII for excisable goods not covered for any of the foregoing parts, the appellant had stated the value only as Rs. 23.49 but had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reight charges and insurance. Therefore, the plea of the appellant is totally devoid of merits. The ld. Commissioner has very elaborately discussed the whole facts and has applied the law. The goods were cleared under the approved price list but in the approved price list the appellant had not given all the components which go into the value of the excisable product. They had filed price list which was approved based on the information given by the appellants. Even the profit margin of 10% was uniformly adopted by them whereas in certain years, the profit margin was more than 15%. Further, the percentage of overheads which has been adopted by them range from 28% to 42% whereas the same should have been taken ranging from 81% to 117%. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
