9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery of differential duty by including 'optional service charges and 'rustproof protection charges' in the 'maximum retail price' for assessment, has taken a contrary view. From the records, it appears that seven show cause notices for the period from September 2004 to March 2005 had proposed recovery of Rs. 26,70,342. The confirmation of duty liability was disputed before the first appellate authority on grounds of denial of principles of natural justice causing the matter to be re-heard by the original authority. 2. Learned Authorised Representative urged us to accept the grounds of appeal preferred by the competent reviewing authority. It is submitted that the option for coverage under the two facilities is offered along with the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abatement under Notification No. 41/2003 dated 1-4-2003. On the basis of intelligence that the appellants are collecting charges described by them as OSC and RPP separately over and above the MRP of the product and thereby they were altering the MRP thereby under valuation of MRP and short paying duty, the factory was visited and records were scrutinised. After scrutiny of the records, it was alleged that the appellants are charging OSC and RPP over and above the MRP of the product through separate invoice and show-cause notice was issued which was adjudicated and impugned demands were confirmed. Aggrieved by the said orders the appellants are in appeals before the Tribunal. xxxx 8. To sum up the above mentioned discussion we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be declared on the packing of the goods on which the additional duty liability was held to be collectible. Such an allegation is not found in the present proceedings. There is no allegation that the 'maximum retail price' on the goods involved in the present dispute was, in any way, altered by the dealer to justify the invoking of the provisions for recovery of differential duty. The decision of the Tribunal in re Videocon Industries Ltd deals with exclusion from the 'maximum retail price' allowed on certain specific charges over and above the abatement permitted in the notification issued under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It clearly follows that the present dispute is distinguishable from the facts pertaining to the two deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
