TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (6) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Tariff. The Central Excise officers visited the appellants factory on 11-12-1985 and recovered certain records. On scrutiny of the records and after further investigations the Department served a show cause notice on the appellants requiring them to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 69,30,990.23 basic plus Rs. 5,46,549.51 Special Excise Duty should not be paid by them in respect of compressors manufactured and removed by them during the period 1-1-1981 to 30-11-1985 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was pointed out in the show cause notice that during the first three months in 1981 compressors of a value of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants had filed price lists in Part I in respect of ex-factory sales to independent buyers and also in Part II in respect of sales to original equipment manufacturers. He added that the appellants had also submitted price lists in respect of sales through their Depots. He referred to para 21 of the impugned order and stated that it is an admitted fact that during the relevant period ex-factory price of the goods as declared by the appellants in the price list in Part I was ascertainable. He argued that under these circumstances the Collector's finding that the price at which the goods were sold at the Depots would form the basis for assessment was illegal and contrary the law laid down by the Apex Court. In support of his contenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de novo adjudication. 3. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. We find from Para 21 of the impugned order reproduced below that the appellants had filed price list in Part I apart from price list in respect of sales to original equipment manufacturer in Part II and also in respect of the sales from their Depots. "21. The case in question calls for a decision whether the amounts collected towards handling and miscellaneous charges, on the sale of compressors from the depots by M/s. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Limited, Hyderabad are to be assessed to duty. It is seen that the company filed their price lists in part I and Part II during the material period. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These were claimed as admissible deductions. It is further pleaded that at the material time, when the Supreme Court had not pronounced its judgment in Bombay Tyre International case, other High Courts particularly Andhra Pradesh High Court had decided that the so-called handling charges are in the nature of post manufacturing expenses and, therefore, they do not form part of the assessable value. This position of law was put into practice by them and the goods had not been cleared contrary to these provisions. In this connection, it may be recalled that although the High Court did decide in favour of the assessees, the Union of India had not accepted this position and have, therefore, preferred civil appeals before the Supreme Court. The ....