2015 (12) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... glass bottles for distribution soft drinks. Unit II in Chinchwad, Pune is engaged in printing the logos of different soft drink manufactures. It is not in dispute that while clearing these bottles, the assessee was paying excise duty on the assessable value determined on the basis of the cost of production and profit of the unprinted glass bottles under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. The assessee received orders of printed bottles from the soft drink manufacturers and adopted a 'Spilt Billing System'. In the said system, Unit I was generating the bill for unprinted bottles to the soft drink manufacturers and physically transferring the unprinted bottles to Unit II. Unit II was raising bill for labour charges for printing. While doin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and investigation of the assessable value of the goods in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 1975. The said show cause notice was confirmed by the Assessing Officer vide its Order-in-Original dated 10.12.1998. The Assessing Officer held that the methods adopted by the assesseee in determining the assessable value of the product have not been found to be above board. There is no sale of goods involved between Unit I and Unit II because both the units are of the same company. Therefore, a sale method to arrive at the assessable value is to work backward from the sale price of the bottles to independent buyers by the assessee. The transactions between the assessee and its independent clients are at arms length and there would be no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Commissioner for fresh consideration, it may not be necessary to interfere with the order of the Tribunal insofar as it directs remand of the matter. However, the grievance of the Department in the present appeal is as it is argued by Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel for the appellant/Department that the Tribunal has restricted the period in which the issue is to be decided from January, 1997 to October, 1997 whereas the show cause notice covers the period from January, 1995 to October, 1997. His submission was that the finding of the Tribunal that period from January, 1995 to October, 1997 should not be considered is based on wrong premises. In this behalf, it is pointed out that in para 8 of the impugned order, the Tribun....