GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 201 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 201 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (333) E.L.T. 468 (Tri. - Del.) - SSI Exemption - valuation - clandestine removal of goods - allegation on the basis that appellant issued parallel invoices for bought out items and did not include the value of bought out items in the value of manufactured goods. - manufacture of beer/IMFL machinery and storage tanks for storing/processing beer - The appellants defended the notice contending that each tank is made as per requirement of the buyer and cann .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ely because the invoices issued did not follow their sequential number it is not sufficient to hold that these are parallel invoices.

The figures in these invoices tally with accounts. Further the department has investigated with the transporters M/s. Doors Transport Ltd. No discrepancy was detected. The allegation that appellant suppressed facts by issuing parallel invoices is factually wrong.

Inclusion of value of bought out items in the Gross Value - Held that:- The bou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e ground, it cannot be dismantled and transported without damaging it. Therefore, the case of the department that appellants manufactured complete plant and the bought out items are part of the complete plant manufactured by the appellant is untenable. - the plea of the appellant that bought out items are not part of the excisable goods is acceptable. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/538/2010-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/53744/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 26-11-2015 - Sulekha Beevi C S, Mem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 1.03.2003. On intelligence received that the appellants were wrongly availing SSI benefit, a search was conducted in the manufacturing premises of the appellant, on 1.6.2004 in the presence of independent witness. The officers verified the stock of finished goods, semi finished goods and raw material and also conducted scrutiny of records. It was observed that appellants had cleared goods valued ₹ 1,71,03,560/- in 2002-03 and goods valued ₹ 1,42,76 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellants also supplied an invoice bought out items which were supplied as such to the buyer. That appellants are not manufacturing or clearing entire plant but only parts of brewing plant (storage tanks) and therefore the value of bought out items ought not to be added to the value of manufactured items. The original authority observed that the value of manufactured items cleared during the relevant period without including the value of bought out items was below one crore and therefore dropp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellants manufactured the complete brewing plant in the appellants' factory with the bought out items. After manufacture of this complete plant, the appellants for convenience of transportation dismantled the same after testing and then erected/installed in the premises of the customer. That the bought out items supplied being integral part of the tanks, the value is includible in the transaction value charged by the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that appellants do not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ious other parts like pipes, bands, union, nipples, flow meters, tee, flanges, sockets, clamps, temperature gauge etc. are needed. These are either purchased by appellant from open market as bought out items or purchased by buyer himself. The bought out items are either transported by the appellant or some items transported by suppliers directly to the buyer. In all case when bought out items were supplied by appellants, invoices were raised for the amount. That the bought out items are not part .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d and in case of buyer to whom storage tanks were supplied another book was used by the accountant. All these figures have been properly accounted and reflects in the ER-1 returns. The allegation of issuance of parallel invoices is without basis and that the original authority had dropped the demand after verifying and considering all these facts. 3. The learned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that appellants were cleari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

val submissions and perused the records carefully. 5. At the outset it needs to be stated that even though a search was conducted in the manufacturing premises of the appellant; and verification of the stock and scrutiny of records was conducted there is no discrepancy detected with regard to the stock/accounts/figures. The only allegation is that appellant issued parallel invoices for bought out items and if the value of clearances of bought out items is loaded to the value of clearances of fin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Patiala. Then again invoice No.1 dated 27.12.2002 is seen issued to Tawi Bottles and the sequence continues upto invoice No.15 dated 29.03.2003 issued to Superior Inds. Ltd., Barely. There is break in sequential number in further dates. Thus apparently the invoices are not issued from same book. The learned counsel has explained this stating that in the cases where bought out items were supplied the invoices in one book was issued and then when manufactured tanks were cleared without bought out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egation that appellant suppressed facts by issuing parallel invoices is factually wrong. 7. The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the bought out items supplied by appellants are essential parts of manufactured goods and whether the value of such items is includible in the transaction value of the finished goods. 8. The gist of allegation in the show cause notice is that appellant manufactured the complete brewery plant, using the bought out items, dismantled the same after test .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version