Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2009 (8) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applications is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of these amounts. The remaining 2 applications, filed by the Managing Director and a Director of the company, seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalties imposed on them under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that the impugned demand of duty is on account of addition of 'development charges' and 'film charges' relating to the design and drawing supplied to the assessee by the customers for the manufacture of unpopulated PCBs, during the period of dispute, to the assessable value of the said PCBs which were manufactured and cleared during the said period. The imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and drawing actually incurred by the assessee for the subsequent period as certified by their Cost Accountant was not addable to the assessable value of the goods. Contextually, the ld. counsel points out that this is the third round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round, an order passed by the Commissioner in adjudication of the aforesaid show-cause notices was set aside and the matter remanded to the ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication by following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Mutual Industries' case [2000 (117) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.-LB). The order passed by the Commissioner pursuant to the said remand order was also set aside in the second round, wherein, this Tribunal remanded the case once again a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 18-2-2008 addressed to the Commissioner. On a perusal of this correspondence between the appellants and the adjudicating authority, we find that the assessee proposed Rs. 3.5 per sq.cm. as the cost of drawing/design and 9 paise per sq.cm. as film charges for a part of the period covered by the first show-cause notice. For the remaining part of the period of dispute, they proposed drawing/design cost per sq.cm. in the range of Rs. 3.69 to Rs. 4.07. Film charges were proposed uniformly at 9 paise per sq.cm for the entire period. These figures, it appears, were presented by the assessee to the adjudicating authority through their letters which we have perused. The adjudicating authority accepted these figures and quantified the demand ....