TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement between M/s.TCIL and M/s.TISCO minimum yield has been considered to be 92% but at the same time the contract also mentions it clearly that yield shall be calculated on actual basis. Appellant has brought on record the documents conveying that yield during the relevant period of demand varies from 94.86% to 95.42%. Accordingly quantification of demand, if any, has to be done by taking into consideration the percentage of actual yield during the period under consideration. However, such a quantification is required to be done by the Adjudicating authority for which this aspect is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for quantification purpose only. Whether outward freight incurred by M/s.TCIL on transporting finished goods from the factory is required to be included in the assessable value - Held that:- Adjudicating authority has observed that Appellant M/s.TCIL has not given the required data as to how much freight shown in his books of account pertain to inward freight on raw materials and how much pertain to outward freight on the finished products. On merits it is held that outward freight incurred by the Appellant from the place of removal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of remand - Appeal Nos.EA-83, 84, 85, 86/05 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75396-75399/2016 - Dated:- 10-5-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) AND SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Dr.Samir Chakraborty, Advocate Shri Abhijit Biswas, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri K.Chowdhury, Supdt.(AR) ORDER PER SHRI H.K.THAKUR. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants against Order-in-Original No.51/COMMR/2004 dated 28.07.2004, issued on 09.11.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. Under this Order-in-Original Adjudicating authority has confirmed a demand of ₹ 2,00,07,358/-(Rupees Two Crore Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) against Appellant M/s.The Tinplate Co. of India Ltd. (TCIL) along with interest and imposed equivalent penalty. A penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) has been imposed upon Appellant M/s.Tata Iron Steel Co.Ltd.(TISCO), Jamshedpur and penalty of ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) has been imposed upon Appellant Shri B.Muthuraman, MD of M/s.Tata Iron Steel Co.Ltd.(TISCO). A penalty of ₹ 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) has been imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also the case of the Appellant that out of total demand of ₹ 2,00,07,358/-(Rupees Two Crore Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) Appellant has already deposited an amount of ₹ 1,03,35,025/-(Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Thirty Five Thousand and Twenty Five only) on 27.02.2011 whereas the actual differential duty payable comes to ₹ 78,12,928/-(Rupees Seventy Eight Lakh Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight only). 3. That Adjudicating authority has confirmed a demand of ₹ 17.00 Lakhs (approx.) on the grounds that yield percentage as per conversion agreement between M/s.TISCO and M/s.TCIL should always be based on 92%. It is the case of the Appellant TCIL that actual yield percentages during the relevant period were 94.86%, 95.46% and 95.17%. The Ld.Advocate made the Bench go through the relevant data maintained by the Appellant for the relevant period and emphasized that these facts were brought to the notice of the Adjudicating authority as per Para-14 of their reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2002. Ld.Advocate also made the Bench go through the relevant conversion agreement where such a yield has been fixed at 92% but als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing authority. Ld.AR thus strongly defended the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. 7. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Main issue involved in these Appeals is regarding valuation of goods manufactured by M/s.TCIL on job-work basis for M/s.TISCO. Following issues are required to be decided in these Appeals:- 1) Whether valuation of goods manufactured on job-work basis are required to be done @ 115% of the cost of manufacture of FHCR Coil under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules during the period 01.07.2000 to 09.02.2001? 2) Whether demand of ₹ 17.00 Lakhs (approx.) calculated by the Adjudicating authority by taking the yield percentage as 92% was correct? 3) Whether outward freight incurred by M/s.TCIL on transporting finished goods from the factory is required to be included in the assessable value? 4) Whether duty to the tune of ₹ 2.00 Lakhs has been demanded excess due to calculation errors? 5) Whether penalties have been correctly imposed upon the Appellants? 8. So far as the issue mentioned at point No.1 of para-7 above is concerned Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Goa vs. Cosme Farma L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace of removal of finished goods cannot be added to the assessable value. However, Adjudicating authority has observed that Appellant M/s.TCIL has not given the required data as to how much freight shown in his books of account pertain to inward freight on raw materials and how much pertain to outward freight on the finished products. On merits it is held that outward freight incurred by the Appellant from the place of removal is not required to be added to the assessable value of the goods manufactured on job-work basis which are cleared on payment of duty from the factory gate of the job-worker. However, the quantum of such outward freight incurred by the Appellant is required to be substantiated by the relevant record maintained by the Appellant and also supported by a Cost Accountants Certificate. For this quantification also the matter is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for quantifying the demand, if any, based on Cost Accountants Certificate to be produced by the Appellant before the Adjudicating authority. 11. So far as imposition of penalties upon the Appellants is concerned, it is observed that Appellant M/s.TCIL was aware of the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
