2019 (7) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... order of the original authority confirming duty liability of Rs. 6,22,835/-, along with interest of Rs. 3,21,894/- under section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposing penalty of Rs. 6,22,835/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, 'printing ink' manufactured at their various factories are brought to the 'quick matching centre' (QMC) at Lower Parel, Mumbai on 'stock transfer' and, after manually inter-mixing of concentrates and additives to cater to the customized requirements of printers, are dispatched to the customers. 2. It is the claim of the central excise authorities that the definition of transaction value under section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 requ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with concentrate and which is recovered from the customers on sale from QMC is an additional consideration which forms part of transaction value as per Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 on which duty is to be discharged by the assessee. Further the assessee is also recovering packing surcharge on small packing of 300 gms., 500 gms. Of printing inks sold from their QMC. The said packing surcharge is levied to recover extra cost (labour, cost of container, label, tape etc.) incurred on such small packing. The surcharge on small packing is Rs. 30/- per kg. per ltr. for500 for 500 gm/ml tin on the list price and Rs. 40/- per kg/ltr for 300 gm/ml tin on the list price. The said packing surcharge recovered is also an additional conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice and the orders of the lower authorities respectively. According to him, the contest of the appellant herein against the decision to classify 'printing medium' had been settled by the Tribunal with adoption of heading no. 3909 59 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the appellant had surreptitiously removed the goods as 'printing ink', classifiable under heading no. 3215 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975, with clear intent to suppress the manufacturing activity at the 'quick matching centre' from where the finishing product, emerging therefrom, i.e. printing ink, was cleared to the ultimate customers without payment of duty and that this was in clear violation of the provisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly, be assembled through a prescribed process by a competent authority and not by the Learned Authorised Representative. 7. We do not wish a foray into the status of the 'quick matching centre' as manufacturer. Indeed, we cannot do so with creation of such jurisdiction by invoking the appropriate provisions in the show cause notice. We are clear that the provisions of section 4(3)(c) and 4(3)(d), which are definitions, are not a substitute authority for imposing duties or computing assessable value for determination of liability. They are intended to be superimposed on the corresponding words in section 4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1994 for ascertaining conformity of the transaction with scope for accepting the transaction value before r....