TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Chibber, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Pramod Kumar, Joint CDR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The appellants are manufacturers of self adhesive holograms subject to central excise duty. They were collecting certain amounts from their clients as Mastering Charges which was not included in the assessable value for payment of excise duty on holograms. 2. Proceedings were initiated against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he knowledge of the department on 31.03.2000 when the officers of the DGCEI conducted the examination of their records. 5. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated their grounds of appeal. He further stated that the cost of the masters cannot be amortized as the same has unlimited life span. He further pleaded that DGCEI officers, who conducted the verification of their rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the clients. These charges are specifically attributable and linked to the hologram developed and produced specifically for different clients. These charges are rightly includible in the assessable value as they are to be considered as part and parcel of the value of the finished excisable goods in terms of Section 4 read with Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. 9. Regarding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arch, 2000. The appellants submitted that the various documents resumed by the officers of DGCEI included documents relating to recovery of 'mastering charges' and as such, the demand of extended period was not sustainable. The fact that the appellants' documents were resumed by the officers has not been disputed. The lower authorities concluded that the officers were examining only the aspect of ....