TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) by placing reliance on the N/N. 27/92 dated 09.10.1992 is misconceived - Valuation - includibility - machine rental charges - Held that: - the issue settled by the judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. [2009 (1) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been categorically held that the charges are not includible in the assessable value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/408/2006 & E/431/2006 - Final Order No. 41085-41086/2017 - Dated:- 19-6-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944 and therefore the value adopted by HCCB need not be taken into consideration for valuation purpose. d. With regard to Machine Rental Charges, the Final order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Pepsico India Holding Ltd. 2004 TIOL-01(T) Delhi was relied upon, wherein it was held that such lease charges on the dispensing machine need not be included in the assessable value of the syrup. Against this order, the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue appeal. However, the penalty was limited to ₹ 2.30 lakhs. Thus the appellants are before the Tribunal. 2. Aggrieved by non-imposition of equal amount of penalty, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le value, he submitted that the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Pepsico India Holding Ltd. (supra). 4. On behalf of the Revenue, Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order and grounds of appeal in appeal No. E/431/2006. 5. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 6.1 The issue regarding valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis is no more res integra and the law has been well settled in this regard by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ujjagar Prints (supra). We therefore find that the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the allegation in this regard and the interference by the Commissioner (Appeals) by placing reliance on the Notification No. 27/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
