1999 (9) TMI 357

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Godrej, ITDC and others. The price list in respect of such contracts is approved in part-11 proforma and the appellants pay duty on such contract prices. 2. The Revenue authorities observed that the contract prices were much lower than the ex-factory dealer price. It was also observed that the appellant had agreements with their bulk consumers for laying and fixing the carpets. They, therefore, undertook investigation into the correctness of the assessable value adopted for the carpets. The Revenue authorities also noticed that the appellants were carrying out conversion of duty paid carpets (outside the factory premises) into rugs for use in Maruti cars. Further, they were also cutting and stitching duty paid, running length carpet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion that of the Rs. 2.6 Crores. collected as laying and fixing charges, Rs.1.66 Crore had actually been spent on such activities. Accordingly, the demand of duty is on the remaining amount. Thus, there is no dispute that the appellants had carried out laying and fixing activities and that they have incurred bulk of the amount realised on those activities themselves. The difference between the amount claimed by the appellant and admitted by the Cost Accountant authorities of the Central Excise department is also on account of difference in the methods of computations of costs and not on account of part of the amount not being relatable to laying and fixing or any other reason. The excise authorities have disallowed wastage of material and h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Scan Electronic v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1988 (35) E.L.T. 690 (Tri.) Essel Packaging Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 430 (CEGAT) Indian Pistons Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Voltas India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1991 (46) E.L.T. 329 (Bom.) = 1992 (40) ECR 24 (Bombay) C.C.E. v. Digvijay Cement Co. - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 202 (CEGAT) MMTC v. C.C.E. - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 148 (CEGAT) Govind Poly Oxygen v. C.C.E. - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 725 (Tribunal) Saru Aikol Chemical v. C.C.E., Meerut - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal) = 1995 (56) ECR 88 (CEGAT) 4. As against the submissions of the appellant, Revenue has submitted that the contract price was lower than the cost of production and they were so fixed only because of the ....