TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law : 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the 2nd respondent can accept the incorrect statement given by the ld. Counsel 2. Why the value as per Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 should not be considered for the valuation of the impugned goods for demanding duty 2.The brief facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing excisable goods falling under Chapters 79, 84, 85, 90, 91 and 96 of the CETA, 1985. On verification of documents maintained by the assessee during the period from 1994-95 to 1997-98, more particularly debit notes raised by the assessee, it was found that amounts realised through debit notes were relevant to preparatory work charges including design, drawings and development charges for dies and tools that were used in the manufacture of various excisable goods manufactured and supplied by them. Alleging that the assessee had not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der reference falling under various chapters during the relevant period are liable to duty at the rate of 15% adv. Hence the differential duty payable on the additional amount realised by M/s. SDL works to be BED Rs. 9,56,666.40. Consequently, the show cause notice proposed to demand duty as follows : Now. therefore, M/s. SDL are hereby called upon to show cause to the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise (P&V), Chennai-II Commissionerate No. 473, M.H.U. Complex, Nandhanam, Chennai-35 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this show cause notice as to why (1) the differential duty amount of Rs. 9,56,666.40 detailed in Annexure A to this notice should not be demanded under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944; (2) a penalty should not be imposed under Section 11AC and under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944;(3) Interest on delayed payment of duty should not be demanded under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3.Thereafter, the case was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who held that the Chartered Engineers certificate filed by the first respondent/assessee could no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee held as follows : 3. Shri M. Kannan, ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents states that the respondents are not challenging the inclusion of amortised cost of mould in the value of the components and further states that the actual amortised cost has been so included for the relevant period. 4. In view of the fact that amortized cost of the mould has been included in the value of the components for the relevant period as stated by the ld. Counsel for the respondents, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the departments appeal is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent is also disposed off. 7. As against the above said order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the Department. 8.Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. We find that this appeal was admitted by this Court on two issues. The primary issue that arise for consideration is whether the Tribunal could pass an order based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. He further submits a copy of the affidavit of Shri K. Seethapathy, Chartered Engineer, enclosing the certificate of value of captive consumption of moulds and dies used in the manufacture of final products. He further submits that they have also paid differential duty for the subsequent period July, 1998 to March,2001 and 2001-02. Duty has been demanded for the total components manufactured during the period 1995-2002, which is supported by the Chartered Engineers certificate. The adjudicating authority has only rejected the certificate as it is undated. In support of that, the Ld. Advocate has filed affidavit of Chartered Engineer regarding authentication of the certificate He relied on Boards Circular No. 170/4/96 dated 23.06.1996 and on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. Kirloskar Ferrous Indus. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum 2005 (189) ELT 474 (Tri.-Bang.) 2. CCE, Madras Vs. Shardlow India Ltd. 1999(110) ELT 772 (Tribunal) 4. We have carefully considered the submission by both the sides and the directions of the Honble High Court of Madras Order dated 12.03.2015. Revenue was in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the adju....