TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (2) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ows : Appellant in E/1758/90-A and E/2633/98-A is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of sheet glass. Glass sheets manufactured by them are dispatched both in loose forms and also in packed condition. They claimed deduction on the cost of wooden crates, cost of handling, nailing expenses, freight from factory gate to depot, octroi, depot expenses like telephone charges, salary to staff, stationery etc., unloading charges at depot, agents' commission, theft pilferage non-delivery (for short, TPND) charges in transit and depot profits. Separate bills were issued, showing value of glass plus Central excise duty in one and value of crates and other expenses in another. They submitted a price list in Part I for the approval of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....took up the writ petition on 26-8-1998 for final disposal. High Court directed the petitioner therein, namely, the manufacturer to file appeal before this Tribunal against the orders impugned before it. In compliance with that direction of the High Court, appeal E/2633/98-A has been filed. 3. While the issue relating to the approval of price list was pending before the High Court, show cause notice dated 7-10-1986 was issued to the assessee demanding central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 6,89,14,077.84 for the period from 1-7-1980 to 31-1-1985, invoking extended period of 5 years under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The above amounts were claimed excluding Rs. 81,90,866.50, subject matter of writ petition 280/81 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on & intimate to the party under intimation to this office within a month of the receipt of the order. The quantified duty & the penalty should be paid up forthwith." Assessee challenges this order-in-appeal E/1758/90-A. Revenue has also questioned the correctness of the above Order-in-Original by preferring appeal E/107/91-A. 4.  In appeal E/2633/98-A, question is one relating to the approval of the price list. That issue is not of any consequence as on today, because duty is claimed on the basis of sales effected during that period and adjudicated upon by Order-in-Original No. 64/89 which is the subject matter of appeals E/1758/90-A and E/107/91-A. On that short ground we hold that no independent consideration is called for on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufactured must be worked back from sale price at the depot in Delhi. So when there was such a concession made on behalf of the manufacturer, and it was on the basis of that concession price at the factory gate were to be worked out, the authorities were justified in finding suppression of fact. Relevant portion of the order passed by the adjudicating officer reads : "...........the factory gate sales though amounting to 5 to 6% do not establish a market in terms of Sec. 4(1)(A) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, as the sales are to related persons or through related persons. The obvious solution, therefore is to accept the sale price at the Depot in Delhi, which is nearest in time and place to the factory. I am glad to find that both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he factory gate taking into consideration the price at depot in Delhi is erroneous. We do not find any force in this argument especially when the Learned Counsel representing the Revenue contended before the adjudicating authority that for purposes of assessment price at the factory gate is to be worked out from the price at the Delhi depot. Even if the price at the factory gate is worked out from the price at the various depots situated in far off places, we do not think there will be any variation in the assessable value. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. A penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed on the assessee under Rule 173Q of the Rules. This amount has been quantified without knowin....