9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is alleged against the respondent that the respondent has not paid the duty as per the assessable value determined under Rule 6 (b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules,1975, which resulted into undervaluation and consequently, short levy of duty. 3. A show-cause notice was issued. In reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent had submitted that they had rightly calculated the duty and they have not contravened the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, inasmuch as these kits were inputs which could not be marketable commodity in the course of general trade and these kits have been cleared to their another unit locate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of the same. In view of these submissions,the impugned order is to be set aside and the adjudication order is to be restored. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the Ld. DR. 7. On careful examination of the submissions herein above, we find that while adjudicating, the adjudicating authority had not considered the submissions made by the respondent, which have been duly recorded in paragraph 11 of the adjudication order that these assembly kits have been sent back to the respondent as inputs by their sister unit located at Pune, which entirely changed the facts of the case and in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly recorded the facts of the case saying that 'appellant company has transferred sub-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained in the partially processed item sent for job work should be debited. When the appellants were paying duty on the cost of raw material (which might have contained non-modvatable inputs also) plus 32.25% as stated in the show cause notice, they were definitely debiting more duty than they were required to,under the provisions of modvat rules. As such there is no merit in the allegation that the appellants were undervaluing the goods with intention to evade payment of duty." 8. As per Rule 57F, it is clarified that this sub-rule did not require the manufacturer to ascertain and declare the value of partly processed item and in this case the assessee has already paid the duty on the cost of inputs plus 32.25% of the cost of inputs as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
