TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004. Appeal No. C/190/2005 pertains to valuation dispute regarding cigarettes manufactured by the appellant and Appeal No. E/191/2005 pertain to identical valuation dispute of smoking mixture.The period of dispute in both the appeals is 1/31973 to 28/2/1985. 2. Dr. Samir Chakraborty (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that during the period 1/3/1973 to 28/2/1983 appellant manufactured cigarettes and smoking mixtures where assessments were kept provisional due to pending post manufacturing expenses (PME) dispute which was decided by Supreme Court by its order dated 10/11/1995 for the period prior to 1/10/1975. That dispute of PME for the period after 1/10/75 was decided by Apex Court by its order dated 19/7/1995 in SLP ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules, 1975;[para 13.1] (d) for the purpose of determining the assessable value under the said Rule 5 (i) freight element (whether actual or equalized) cannot be added ; [para 14.3.1] (ii) similarly, cost of CFCs cannot be added; [para 14.3.2] (iii) advertisements and sales promotion expenses incurred by the WDs shall be added; and [para 14.3.3] (iv) similarly, interest including that on the security deposits made by the WDs shall be added ; and [paras 14.3.6, 14.3.8 and 14.3.11] (e) no deduction whatsoever on account of the supposed duty shall be made from the advertisement and sales promotion expenses and interest, while adding these to the price; [p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tures. That both these show cause notices contained identical allegations regarding excess recovery of amounts by wholesale Dealers a part of which was also reaching the appellant and following was alleged in these show cause notices: " (a)ITC has deliberately and intentionally designed and adopted a pricing strategy with the connivance of the Wholesale Dealers and kept the prices lower to facilitate evasion of duty and the suppressed potion of the price which was kept in the hands of the WB by creating an artificially high gross profit margin termed as Generation was retained in the hands of the WDs, directly and indirectly monitored and controlled by ITC, and utilized for ITCs own purpose and part of such additional margins wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so controlled monitored expenses of WDs on margins such as advertisement and sales promotion, etc. The show cause notice accordingly sought to demand differential duty of Rs. 39.82 crores for the period June 1980 to February, 1983 by including the Wholesale Dealers margin apportioned towards bank charges, ITC collected interest on CSD, advertisement and sales promotion, administrative charges and BTL margins claimed for assessment from time to time in the value of cigarettes for the purpose of assessment of duty. 2.4 That similar show cause notices were also issued to other four factories of ITC by the respective jurisdictional Collectors of Central Excise. All the show cause notices were , however, assigned by CBEC to the Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities to take action for finalisation of assessments. 2.6 That a show cause notice dated 18/3/1997 was issued to the appellant by ACCE, Bhagalpur for the period March 1973 to February, 1987 and finalization of provisional assessments was done by an ex- parte order dated 13/10/1997. This order of the ACCE, Bhagalpur was set aside by CCE (A) by Order-in-Appeal dated 11/11/1998 and matter remanded to ACCE, Bhagalpur, interalia, to decide the issue by following the ratio laid by Supreme Court in MRF case. That after issue of a Corrigendum, DCCE, Bhagalpur vide Order-in-Original No. 2/2002 dated 29/8/2002, followed by a corrigendum dated 4/10/2002, confirmed the demands against which appeal was filed by CCE (Appeals). That the said appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....motion, Below the line Expenses (BTL) and interest on trading; on the basis of orders passed by other jurisdictional AC's /DC's and the ratio of cases decided by Supreme Court. It was also the case of the appellant that method of calculation of duty should also be the same what other jurisdictional AC's/DC's have followed and not the methodology adopted by Adjudicating authority, Munger factory. 3. Shri K. Choudhari, Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue also argued that due to multiplication of Adjudicating authorities deciding the issues and voluminous facts involved, these appeals may be remanded to the Adjudicating authorities. That factual details prevailing as per the Adjudicating authorities, In-charge of Bangalore, Par....