2000 (9) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er contract entered into by the appellants and the said M/s. ASIL Industries. The authorites below have added the cost of these drawings in the assessable value of the impugned goods and has confirmed the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 5,86,050/-. A personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed on the appellants. 2. The appellant duly represented by Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. consultant, have contended that the value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 is available being normal price at which the goods are ordinarily sold in the course of wholesale trade. As such, the said price has to be adopted for the purposes of payment of duty and there is no occasion to go to Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion would apply to the facts in the instant case. In the case of Mutual Industries also, the appellants had entered into a contract with their customer for supply of plastic component by using mould supplied free of charge by the customer. The Tribunal in Para 6 of the said decision observed as under :- "That had not these moulds been made available by the customers the appellant could not have manufactured moulded components as required by the customer. So the value of the mould must go in assessing the value of the finished product. It was only by taking into consideration the value of the mould, the value of the moulded components manufactured by the appellant was fixed. If the moulds were not supplied by the customers, the value of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oulds have to be supplied free of charge by the customer, it cannot be said that the price so fixed is the sole consideration for the sale of the finished products, if the mould was not supplied by the customer, the product could not have been manufactured. As such, the Larger Bench has held that the price of the finished goods fixed in the contract between the parties can safely be taken as not the sole consideration for the sale of the finished product, the other consideration being value attributable to the use of the mould. Similarly, in the instant case, we find that the contract between the appellants and the customer was for consideration of Lead Annealing Bath, though the drawings were to be supplied free of cost by their customer. ....