2007 (12) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p;The appellants are a group of companies engaged in the manufacture of Texturised yarn. The combined office premises of all of them were visited by the officers on 28th March, 1997 and various statutory records as also private records maintained by them were scrutinized. The Revenue entertained a plea that the value as shown in the central excise invoices, on which duty was being paid by the appellants was on the lower side than the value as reflected in the commercial invoices/bills raised by them to their customers. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against them for confirmation of differential duty and for imposition of penalty. The said show cause notice stands adjudicated by the Commissioner. 3.1 Appearing on behal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rant for inclusion of extra freight charges in the assessable value. We also find favour with the ld. Advocate's contention that the Commissioner in the impugned order has made out a totally new case by observing that the freight expenses might be towards bringing raw material in the factory, whereas there was no such allegation in the show cause notice. In view of the above, we find that the said extra freight charges recovered by the appellant cannot be held to be part of the assessable value. 4. The second disputed issue relates to as to whether the brokerage offered to the agents who procured the orders for the appellants are required to be added in the assessable value or not. The appellant have relied upon the Tribunal's decis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d false nature of such statement is proved by comparison of entries. He further submits that each invoice shows deniers and other specifications and is comparable. 5.2 In view of the above statement made by the ld. Advocate, we would like the Commissioner to compare the two entries and adjudicate on this issue afresh. 6. It has further been brought to our notice that the duty demand against M/s. Deekeen Polyester Pvt. Ltd. has been confirmed as Rs. 12,65,542/- on the differential assessable value of Rs. 4,64,462/-, which on the face of it, is erroneous. By applying the correct rate of duty, the said demand would come to Rs. 2,65,542/- and as such the addition of figure-1 is an obvious type of typographical mistake. There is ....