2004 (11) TMI 493

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Valuation - Where sales are (1) not effected at factory gate but effected from Depot, whether dis calculation on account of sales tax, trade discount, turn over tax, freight & octroi claimed on equalized basis is permissible on entire quality cleared from the factory or is to be restricted to actual sales from depots. (b)     What about deductions with respect to assessee liability for such expense & Sales tax for stock which remain unsold at the end of the period. (c)     On Modvat credit eligibility - (i)      Eligibility of credit on inputs used in reprocessed goods taken from BSR & reentered in RG 1 (ii)     Whether a credit is required....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... containers (drums/buckets) & confined demands of Rs. 9,60,485/-, on excess deductions claimed, Rs. 11,130/- on scrap of paper & Aluminium foil, Rs. 43,410/- on inputs used in reprocessing BSR material. Imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,15,025/- i.e. equivalent to the duty confined. Hence this appeal.  5.After hearing both sides and considering the material it is found - (a)     The assessments were provisional. The Assistant Commissioner vide his Order No. V(21) 1587/Adj/NSK-IV/03, dated 17-2-2004 had confirmed the working of actual duty liability on all deduction, which are acceptable as permissible on merits, but are only being contested on quantum by the adjudicator, by arriving at the following figures - Yea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s observed that the adjudicator has recorded the fact of Rs. 11,130/- having been paid and there is an admission of liability, on this account by the assessee. No contest is made before us. We therefore do not find a reason to upset the findings. (c)     As regards duty of Rs. 43,410/- reversed on reprocessing of the BSR stocks, we do not share the reliance of the adjudicator on the case of M/s. Bharat Gears Ltd. [1996 (87) E.L.T. 668 (T)] as the process did not account to manufacture. The Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 32 (S.C.)], have held that even if process did not amount to manufacture the value thereof had to be added to the value of eligible goods, if the process was....