2003 (12) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Decision Dismissing Appeal: Appellant's Failure to Substantiate Mould Costs

The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's persistent failure to substantiate the mould costs ... Valuation Issues: Valuation of plastic parts for television sets including cost of mouldsAnalysis:1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plastic parts for television sets, used moulds provided free of cost by purchasers. The issue arose when the department proposed adding the cost of moulds to the value of the plastic articles.2. The Counsel for the appellant acknowledged that the cost of goods should be part of the plastic value but disputed the 10% addition. Despite multiple requests, the appellant failed to provide details of mould costs and amortization. The Assistant Commissioner rejected a cost accountant's certificate for not considering all costs and for uniformly valuing moulds at Rs. 15 lakhs, irrespective of variations in plastic types.3. The appellant sought another chance to prove the correct cost, but the Tribunal denied it, citing the prolonged delay since 1987 and the numerous opportunities already given. The Assistant Commissioner had conducted over 14 hearings from 1987 to 1991, indicating the appellant's failure to produce the necessary information.4. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal due to the appellant's persistent failure to substantiate the mould costs adequately. The Tribunal found no justification to intervene in the order given the appellant's prolonged non-compliance and lack of new evidence presented.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the valuation of plastic parts for television sets, the appellant's failure to provide essential cost details, and the Tribunal's decision based on the prolonged history of non-compliance.