9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistance of Mr. Sridharan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bangur appearing for the Revenue, perused the appeal paperbook. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be admitted. It is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law :- "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is correct in upholding the orders-in-original dated 30th April, 2007 and 31st August, 2007 passed by the Commissioner? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the CESTAT is correct in holding that the appellants failed to produce any document ignoring the relevant evidence which were already on record such as trial balance, certificate of cost accountant etc.?" 5. Mr. Sridharan would submit that the appellant-assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of parts and components of lifts/elevators, erection/installation of lifts and maintenance and servicing of already erected and installed elevators. Prior to December, 2003, the assessee had two factorie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue officials and the audit team, during the course of audit, suggested that 20% of the head office administrative expenses are also to be included in the cost of production of the parts and components manufactured and cleared by the assessee. It is in these circumstances that the show cause notice dated 4th May, 2002 was issued for the period from April, 1997 to June, 2001. A reply was filed to this show cause notice. Once again, on this very subject of head office expenses, another show cause notice dated 9th August, 2002 was issued, to which as well, a detailed reply was filed. The details of these show cause notices of 2002 are mentioned and it is alleged that the Commissioner confirmed the demand by invoking extended period of limitation. An appeal was filed against this order-in-original passed by the Commissioner on 21st February, 2003. 6. Then, there were four more periodical show cause notices issued on research and development expenses. From the record, it is apparent that in the two show cause notices, on which the order was passed by the adjudicating authority the appeals were filed, the Tribunal extensively heard them on 7th October, 2004. The orders-in-original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain the further appeal. No substantial question of law arises from the order under appeal. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 11. As indicated above, we have perused the paperbook, including the order under appeal. The Tribunal, firstly in Para 1 gives the details of the orders-in-original and Appeal No. E/1499/2007 pertains to the order-in-original dated 27th August, 2007 passed on show cause notices dated 4th May, 2001, 3rd August, 2001, 1st August, 2002, 1st January, 2004, 5th July, 2004, 22nd January, 2003, 8th July, 2003, 30th January, 2004 and 25th August, 2004. As far as Appeal No. E/3/2009 is concerned, that impugns the order-in-original dated 26th November, 2008 concerning the two show cause notices dated 4th May, 2002 and 9th August, 2002. 12. The Tribunal has summarised the facts and arguments, including the plea that four regional offices and two factories are the units where the expenses have been incurred besides the head office. The argument was that the expenses incurred at the head office and out of which part of the expenses are not related to manufacturing activity, cannot be included in the assessable value. The detailed submissions are that in the Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to manufacturing of goods, then, surely, the tribunal could have called upon the assessee to produce the records or could have summoned the record from the excise authorities and peruse it. However, the Tribunal proceeds to hold that there is no dispute that the head office expenses and research and development expenses relatable to manufacturing are included in the assessable value of captively consumed goods. However, the assessee was given an opportunity to submit necessary documents, namely, books of account, balance sheet, ledger, etc., and extract of the same to show whether the entire overheads related to head office and research and development expenses are attributable to manufacture or otherwise. The Tribunal then records the concession of the assessee's advocate that the assessee could not trace out any further records. 15. We do not think that these findings in Para 6 of the order under appeal would suffice. Before us as well, the assessee has brought to our notice that the cost of production of goods is based on the certificate of independent Cost Accountant. Then, while perusing the balance sheet, the department' Cost Accountant was of the view that the hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
