TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (9) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puty Director, Anti Evasion in respect of photocopier and micro film reader printers (MFRP) manufactured and cleared by the appellant in the year 84-85 and show cause notice dated 2-12-1985 issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector in respect of photocopiers manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period 1-3-1984 to 30-9-1985. 2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of photocopiers and MFRP, was filing price lists from time to time and was paying duty on various clearances made during the period referred to above. Show cause notice dated 1-1-1985 alleged, inter alia, that appellant was collecting, besides the price list prices, various amounts by way of additional consideration but had not paid duty on such extra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so pointed out that the appellant had collected in various invoices amounts at prices higher than the prices declared in the price lists. Show cause notice proposed inclusion in the assessable value of the value of four items, freight and cartage charges as well as difference of value shown in the price lists and in the invoices and proposed demand of differential duty on that basis. Appellant resisted the notice on merits and further contended that there was duplication of demand in the two show cause notices as well as in the R.T. 12 assessments made by the Superintendent. Collector in the impugned order directed that the demand will be reduced to the extent of duplication, if any, but rejected the other contentions raised by the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No. 51/70 in respect of MFRP was rejected by the Collector (Appeals). It is brought to our notice that adjudicating authority had rendered a similar decision in respect of another period and that decision was upheld by the Tribunal and appeal preferred by the assessee against the decision is pending in the Supreme Court. Collector in this case declined to go into this aspect not on account of pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court but on the ground that the appellant had not raised this plea at the stage of approval of the classification list. The Collector was in error in declining to go into this aspect merely on the ground that the appellant had not claimed benefit of this notification in the classification list. This aspect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charges in the assessable value. Correctness of this is also challenged. We are not able to sustain the above finding of the Collector. The Collector should have called upon the appellant to prove the actual expenses incurred towards freight and cartage and to the extent of actual expenses the charges should have been allowed to be deducted. This aspect has to be worked out afresh by the Collector. 9. At pages 107-108 are seen a copy of Annexure-5B to the show cause notice (appeal E/2515/90-A). The annexure contains entries in relation to each month in the period 1-3-1983 to 30-9-1985. Column (3) relates to quantity cleared in each month. Column (4) relates to value of machines on which duty was paid. Column (5) furnishes value of mac....