9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the amounts reflected in the debit notes on which Excise Duty has not been paid has to be included in the invoice price as the sum of the two would represent the value of the impugned goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975. The ld. Advocate claims that the amount reflected in the debit note represents abnormal expenditure which is not liable to be included in the assessable value. In our view, the said contention has been rightly rejected by the Adjudicating Commissioner. We also note that the remand order of the Tribunal did not require this issue to be reopened in the remand proceedings as the same was confined to the other three issues. As such, the demand in respect of this issue stands confirmed. 4.The second issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire value of the designs and drawings in such cases while arriving at assessable value of the impugned goods. Consequently, the demand of Rs. 3,65,300/- is confirmed. 5.The third issue relates to addition of notional interest on advances. We find that the Department has not shown as to how the prices were influenced by the advances taken and there is no comparison to bring out any evidence that the same goods have been sold to the buyers at higher price who have not given advances. As such, the case law cited by the ld. Advocate relating to Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. I.S.P.L. Industries Ltd. - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cludes the cost of wheelsets is permissible. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we have no option but to set aside the demand of Rs. 6,77,305.92 confirmed by the Original Authority against the appellants. 7.As regards the penalty imposed, we find in the original proceedings the penalty of Rs.1.00 lakh was imposed whereas in the remand proceedings a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs has been imposed. The ld. Advocate argues that firstly in the remand proceedings the appellants cannot be visited with a higher penalty when the remand was as a result of their appeal before the Tribunal. Secondly, he states that since the issue involved in this case relates to interpretation of law, a lenient view may be taken and no penalty may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
