9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Valuation Rules i.e. based on the cost of production of the goods. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 12-4-2000 was issued alleging that comparable goods produced by the assessee were being sold on ex-factory basis and valuation of the PCBs removed to the depots were required to be carried out based on the value of such comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of said Valuation Rules. The notice held that revision of the assessment based on the comparable value indicated a short-levy of Central Excise duty amounting more than Rs. 63 lakhs. The show cause notice, accordingly, proposed recovery of the duty short-levied as well as imposition of penalty on the appellant. The notice also alleged that as the short-levy had taken place on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Burn in process; (b) Vibration process; (c) Environmental Stress Simulation (E.S.S.) Process; (d) Heat Run in final Unit; (e) Conformal Coating; (f) GAL programming; and (g) Service Bulletin Implementation" 3. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the appellants had adduced technical opinion in the nature of affidavit of expert in support of their contention that Generic PCBs and customized PCBs are different goods and cannot be compared. He also pointed out that detailed information about each process required to be carried out during customizing had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not fall in the same category. Based on these decisions and the provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, the learned Counsel submitted that adoption of the value of Customized PCBs for the purpose of Generic PCBs as done in the impugned order is not legally sustainable at all. 5. Another point made by the appellant regarding difference in prices is that Customized PCBs are sold for repair purposes and the value of such sales cannot be adopted for the valuation of parts in general, inasmuch as normally vast difference exists between the parts sold for manufacture of original equipment and parts for repair. 6. On the question of time-bar the learned Counsel has pointed out that the appellants are not guilty of suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Generic PCBs based on cost of production was made after suppressing the fact of sale of comparable goods by them. 8. The records of the case make it clear that there is considerable difference between customized PCBs which are ready for fitment as replacement parts and Generic PCBs. Many processes are to be carried out for customizing. Failure during customization also takes place. The appellant had produced detailed and convincing evidence in the reply to the show cause notice as well as through expert opinion that the two types of PCBs have to be treated as different goods. Therefore, we are in agreement with the appellant that the two types of PCBs could not be compared and the value of one adopted for the other. There is also m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
