9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, heard Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR and perused the records. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Escorts Ltd. manufacture, inter alia, Hydraulic Gear Pump and Hydraulic Distributor Assembly. These goods were used captively by them in their Truck Division. These goods were also sold through their spare part division. Differential Central Excise duty was demanded from them as they had discharged less duty liability in respect of impugned goods cleared to Tractor Division as the assessable value adopted for these goods was less than the value at which these goods were removed to spare parts division. In all the three impugned orders, the Commissioners, Central Excise confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty observing that goods capti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They had also mentioned that different prices were admissible for different class of buyers at the same time; that at the same time different prices were also admissible for the same goods provided the sale was genuine and was to an independent buyer; that their case was a simple one that they were supplying tractor parts for captive consumption as OE to their own Tractor Division and such goods were not marketed in the market and the goods marketed in the market were not the same parts. 4. Countering the arguments contained in Appeal Memorandum, the ld. SDR submitted that the appellants had cleared in both the cases Hydraulic gear pump and Hydraulic distribution assembly and as such the goods were similar and when a comparable price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules are attracted for determining the assessable value of the impugned goods captively consumed. We observe that the Collector, Central Excise, in order dated 5-10-1993 has given clear findings that "both type of goods are the same in specification and quality". The Collector further observed that if at all any abetment was permissible on the value of the goods sold in the market for determining the value of goods, it would be the cost of packing alone and the appellants had not filed any data relating to the cost of packing so that the same could be examined for permitting the deduction to arrive at the assessable value of the goods captively consumed. We observe that merely the process of marketing, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
