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

....aterials. 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, the same was included in the assessable valu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing 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. from 01/03/98 to 31/12/2001. However, there is no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Both the lower authorities....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g 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 manufactured out of 335 drawings. As a principle of inclusion of amortized cost only cost to that extent be included, which is used for the manufacture of final products. Therefore, if 3....