2016 (2) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Ostwal, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri S.V. Nair, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER PER: RAJU The appellants, M/s Siemens Ltd., were clearing some parts of X-ray machines/instruments. They were clearing such parts on payment of duty to their depot from where the same were sold as part of composite contracts. The appellants were also clearing certain bought out items on reversal of CE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 18% and 20%. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the manner in which calculations for the differential value have been made. He also argued that the rate of duty applicable to the differential value would be 5% or 8%, the rate applicable to the medical equipment. Learned Counsel tried to explain the method of calculation of extra amount collected. From the commercial value of the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uts cleared as such are sold to various customers. Since they are recovering composite price and there is no sale of goods manufactured at factory gate, the price of goods manufactured by them needs to be established at depot. Since the goods are being sold at depot at a price different from the price at which the same have been cleared from the factory gate, the assessable value needs to be revis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here is no evidence that any activity was being undertaken on the said goods at the depot. The goods are cleared from the depot in the shape in which they were received, although as part of a larger basket of goods, also containing certain inputs cleared as such. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that a different rate of duty can be applied to the parts manufactured by the appellant in the....