TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 654
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) under a contract entered into with them. The said contract provided for price variation and the provisional prices were based on prices evolved by Board for Industrial Casting and Pricing. Subsequent to clearances in the above period, the appellants received from DOT arrears on account of revision of wages; they also received interest towards debt raised for purchasing machinery deployed in the manufacture of telephone switching apparatus cleared to DOT. The appellants had not included elements of wage arrears, interest on loan incurred to purchase machinery and notional interest on advances received from DOT in the value for paying duty on clearances under provisional assessment. The jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise adjudicated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision arrears including the company's contribution to the EPF scheme. HTL had not included these receipts in working out the value for payment of duty. The argument of the appellants against inclusion of these elements in the assessable value were rejected by the Commissioner. In these proceedings also HTL had raised the plea that the demand made was not sustainable as the assessment was provisional. 2. During hearing of the appeals against the above orders before the Tribunal, the learned consultant for HTL had prayed for remanding the matter for de novo consideration as the assessments were provisional. The Tribunal found that Order No. 16/97 had been passed in violation of the terms of the remand. All the three orders had been pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to DOT and decided the dispute against the appellants on all counts. An amount of Rs. 2,78,91,983/- was demanded towards differential duty on these elements net off the amounts already paid by HTL towards admitted liability on account of price revision. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the original authority had not followed the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) in force at the material time and the remand directions of the Tribunal contained in Final Order No. 864/96 dated 17-5-96. Accordingly, he remanded the matter to the original authority to finalize the assessment in accordance with law and the remand directions of the Tribunal. In Final Order No. 846/96 dated 17-5-1996 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d differential duty on wage arrears and interest on loan portion of capital employed against the terms of the remand orders of the Tribunal. He also found that the original authority made a mistake in considering 'interest on loan portion of capital employed' as 'interest on advances'. That authority had failed to establish that the advances received from DOT had unduly influenced the prices for sale to DOT. As regards the method of final assessment to be followed he made the following important observation:- "However in the instant case, since the non-DOT price would represent the 'nearest ascertainable equivalent of the normal price' as prescribed under Section 4(1)(b), the same would comprehensively cover all aspects of valuation incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged from non-DOT buyers in line with the decision of the Tribunal's Final Order No. 864/1996. It is submitted that adopting price as per Section 4(1)(a) main definition clause for assessing goods cleared under a contract was incorrect; for assessing such clearances the contract price has to be adopted in terms of proviso (i) to Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) made an illegal direction. It is prayed that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal before him on merits in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and the remand directions of the Tribunal. We have also heard the learned Jt. CDR who invited our attention to the various orders passed by the Tribunal including the Final ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal in the Final Order No. 846/96 is incorrect. However, we note that considering the bulk purchases made by DOT the value adopted for a relatively smaller quantity of goods cleared on sale to non-DOT buyers cannot be adopted as such; the same has to be adjusted for appropriate discount (or lower price) considering the bulk purchases made by DOT and the appropriate price arrived at in accordance with law. In the alternative, the includibility or otherwise of the various disputed elements could be examined in the light of the law and case law and the includible amount quantified and value determined correctly. 6. We find that the appellants have placed wrong reliance on the Apex Court's judgment in support of the claim that the di....