TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods may be included in the assessable value but anything beyond that would not be includable for pre 01.07.2000. In the present case, we find that the barring 2-3 vouchers wherever a paltry sum of few hundreds rupees for certain labours, there is no evidence whatsoever for an expenditure of ₹ 1300/MT. We are unable to appreciate how a contribution @ 8% which is under Employees State Insurance Scheme will be includable in the assessable value. Similarly, in respect of their own transfer it is not clear how a figure of ₹ 2000/MT has been arrived at. - demand has been issued without proper price analysis or investigation - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1659/05- Mum - Final Order No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in the impugned order wherein he imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with 173Q/ Rule 27 of the Central Excise Act, 1944/2001-2002 and also interest. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before us. It is to be noted that the period involved is prior to 01.07.2000 as also post 01.07.2000 and in the first show-cause notice extended period has also been invoked. The first show-cause notice is for the period January 1998 to January 2002 and second one from February 2002 to January 2003. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that as far as the sale of the scrap is concerned they have not recovered any amount over and above the sale price, and as per their contract for sale it was the duty of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s referred to Larger Bench, there were differing views and hence, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the impugned order. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We note that issue is settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Supreme Petrochem Ltd. (supra). We have also gone through the show-cause notice as also a copy of the audit objection/ audit memo. From these documents we are unable to understand the basis of taking an amount of ₹ 1300/MT over and above the invoice price. While the expenditure incurred on loading of the goods may be included in the assessable value but anything beyond that would not be includable for pre 01.07.2000. In the present case, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
