2009 (3) TMI 700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. None, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. -  This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Heard the ld. JDR and perused the records. None appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. 3. M/s. Luna Agro Industries Pvt Ltd., Satara, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as assessee) are manufacturer of cane cutters, fiberiz....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 21-4-2003, relying on Tribunal order in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Pune v. Bharat Forge Ltd., 2000 (122) E.L.T. 169 (T), allowed the appeal. 7. In the "Grounds of Appeal", the Revenue has contended as under :- (i)  A manufacturer cannot undertake any manufacturing activity of any product of the kind mentioned above without drawing/designs. The charges....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue has listed some of the case laws in this regard in their appeal memorandum. 8. We find that fourteen show cause notices issued to the assessee during 1994 to 1999 purport to add 2% of the value of the goods as design and drawing charges and to recover duty on the additional added value. It is seen that the assessee manufactures the goods as per drawings supplied by the customers. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the factory. The addition of the amount of 2% of the assessable value for working out the duty liability is totally subjective and imaginary and has no legal basis. 9.  The ratio of the various case laws cited by the Revenue in their appeal memorandum is not applicable as in those case laws the charges for drawing and design were recovered by the assessee from the customers whereas in t....