9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Sukalp Agencies, Lucknow is engaged in the manufacturing of D. G. Sets. On 30.07.2002, a team of Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises, where various discrepancies in the stocks and records were found. So, various additions/penalties were made, which were partly upheld by the Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the appeal, entire judgment has been challenged but he will confine his argument to the forth allegations mentioned in the impugned order, which relates to the duty demand of Rs.19,58,726 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel further submits that as per C.P.W.D. Guidelines, 75% on total costs is presumed to be manufacturing cost; and 25% cost is presumed as installation and testing charges. So, the Tribunal has wrongly included the installation and testing charges in the total value as both the activities are exempted from the clutches of the Tax. Lastly, he made a request to set aside/modify the impugned order. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the department has relied on the impugned order. He submits that no request was made at any stage for getting the papers from the appellant. He admits that appellant is entitled to get the copies of the seized documents as per rules. He further submits that the appellant is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason that the installation and testing charges were not shown separately in their tenders. It includes in the total value. No bifurcation was mentioned as per section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The installation and testing charges are not shown separately by the appellant in the tenders, while they have paid duty on the invoices after deducting the same from the price which is not as per provisions of the Central Excise law, then there is no reason to grant any relief to the appellant. Further, the claim of the assessee that installation and testing charges are not part of their manufacturing activities is not acceptable for the reason that in the agreements dated 18.03.2001 with M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines, Pune, it was shown tender ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
