TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fine of Rs. 10 lakhs. The duty demand is in respect of clearances carried out from its bottling facility at Panipat and the period involved is April, 1993 to December, 1994. 2. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. 3. The dispute revolves around determination of assessable value of aerated waters and post mix syrup. It is the contention of the appellants that the entire duty demand is the result of incorrect determination of assessable value by the Commissioner under impugned order. The learned Counsel for the appellants took us through the different items of deduction claimed, and required to be made, while fixing the assessable value and has pointed out that serious errors have taken place, while determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....supplied free under this scheme have nothing to do with the sale of aerated waters, but it is merely linked to installation of visi cooler. Accordingly, it is not an eligible discount under Section 4 of the Act. As regards the deductions on account of schemes/quantity discount, DKDBL has submitted that the distributors of DKD give 1 to 4 bottles of free liquid to their buyers for purchase of one crate of bottles during specified periods. The distributors/dealers of DKD in turn submit to DKD the claim on extent of supply of these free bottles to their buyers and DKD allows credit to that account to their distributors/ dealers. As is evident from this explanation given by DKDBL, this scheme/ quantity discount is given by the dealers of DKD to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the appellant has emphasised that the assessable value fixed in the impugned order and the consequential differential duty demand are not sustainable. According to him, the assessable value is required to be re-determined correctly in the light of relevant legal provisions and the facts as available in the appellant's records. He has submitted that the appellant was selling part of the goods on the factory basis and that price should have been treated as assessable value as provided in Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also submitted that the rejection of ex-factory price on the ground that sales at those prices constituted only a small percentage of the sales was not correct. 5. In respect of a differenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the appellant's business altogether by confiscating its land, building and plant and machinery. It is also pointed out that the provision in the Rule for such confiscation had been deleted well before the passing of the impugned order. 7. The dispute is with regard to what constitutes the assessable value of the goods produced by the appellant. Essentially, what is required to be determined is the "normal price" of the goods. It is on record that the appellant had been selling part of the goods to unrelated parties on ex-factory basis. That price has been rejected for the purpose of assessable value, in the impugned order merely for the reason that such sales constituted a very negligible percentage of the total clearances and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in determining the assessable value, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be re-considered by the Commissioner after taking into account all the relevant factors and after hearing the appellant. 8. The demand of about Rs. 17 lakhs in respect of the subsidy given by M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd., is clearly contrary to the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Coolade Beverages Ltd. That demand is not sustainable. 9. We are also in agreement with the appellant that confiscation of land, plant and machinery etc. with option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The dispute is about the valuation of the goods for the purpose of asse....