2017 (4) TMI 640

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al supplied to the customers of packaging materials. The said drawing on design and development of art work is used by the appellant in manufacture of packaging materials. The case of the department is that the cost of design and development of the art work, which is used on behalf of the customers should be included in the assessable value of the packing materials manufactured by the appellant. It is also a fact that both the companies i.e. M/s.Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd. (TIPL) and M/s.Tetra Pak Converting India Ltd., (TPCIL) have been amalgamated and a new entity was formed, viz., Tetra Pack India Pvt. Ltd., which is the present appellant. Considering the value of design and development of the art work as a part of the assessable value, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacturing process only needs to be considered for the purpose on calculating duty demand. She further submits that the adjudicating authority also not considered the cum duty benefits, which is available to the appellants in the light of the following judgements: a) Srichakra Tyres 1999 (108) ELT 361 (T) a1) Dept.'s appeal dismissed by SC 2002 (142) ELT A-279 (SC) b) Maruti Udyog 2002 (142) ELT 3 (SC) b1) Review Petition dismissed 2005 (179) ELT A-102 (SC) c) CBEC Circular No.803/36/2004-CX dated 27/12/2004 2005 (179) ELT-11 d) Supreme Fabrics Ltd. 2008 (221) ELT 161 (SC) 2.2 As regards the limitation, she submits that the demand was raised for the extended period, i.e. f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rawings as against Rs. 1,24,72,818/- as mentioned in the show-cause notice. ii) Only 335 drawings were used out of 2,200 drawings for manufacture of packaging materials. iii) Cum duty benefit was not considered. iv) The demand is time barred as no suppression of facts involved. 5.1 As regards the first point, we are of the view that this is a matter of fact based on the evidence, which is to be substantiated and to be verified by the adjudicating authority. 5.2 As regards the use of 335 drawings out of 2200 drawings for manufacture of goods, we are of the view that if all the drawings were not used, the value of 2200 drawings cannot be included in the manufacture of goods, which were claimed to have been man....