2023 (4) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n terms of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000. 2. This is the 2nd round of litigation. In the 1st round, the matter had come-up before this Tribunal, wherein Revenue had made addition of 10% to the transaction value, invoking the extended period of limitation for the period January 2006 to June 2010. The demand of Rs.78,08,982/- was confirmed in the order-in-original dated 17 February 2012, pursuant to show cause notice dated 14th January, 2011. The Appellant had produced certificates before the Tribunal in the earlier round issued by the Chartered Engineer/valuer, wherein it was stated that the rate for drawings/designs will be 0.025 % to 0.075% of the actual cost, which shall b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....accounted for independently under the head "Plant" in the schedule of assets, depreciation thereon is claimed in the Profit and Loss account for the year and over the period of time, the plant is depreciated in totality. It is also urged that the value of drawings and design provided to the Appellant for fabrication of steel structure, in the facts and circumstances, shall be zero under Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules 2000. 5. The ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order-in-original rejecting the contentions of the appellant for the reason - the presumption that the buyer has amortized the cost of drawings and design as depreciated in its books of accounts is without any documentary evidence and hence not established. Furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the product value. (e) The case of M/s. Pratibha Flowcon Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Bhilai is identical to the case of the noticee/appellant. 7. The ld. Commissioner further observed that the Revenue have discharged their initial burden by taking 10% of the value of the goods for the purpose of calculation of duty for drawings and designs charges and now it was the assessees' responsibility to provide the accurate value of such drawings and design charges duly supported by documents/records. The appellant have only led evidence by producing certificates/quotations from Chartered Engineer of generalised nature, claiming the value as 0.025% or between 0.075% to 0.095% % of the value of the goods. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner confirmed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orders for supply through the process of competitive bidding, either directly or through another main contractor/vendor, therefore, the cost of drawings and designs can be considered near to zero or negligible value. This is because the same drawing has been used repeatedly for long for manufacture of such recurring parts of the machinery/structures. The noticee/appellant could not provide the cost of drawings to the Department as it was dependent on the buyers, who supplied the drawings. The appellant neither has its own Drawings and Design Department nor knows the cost of drawings supplied by its buyers. The goods supplied by the noticee/appellant were both original as well as replaceable parts of machinery/structures, which were develope....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of penalty and have dropped the balance amount of proposed demand. 9. As directed by this Tribunal, on the conclusion of the hearing, Revenue have filed a report received from the Field Formation informing that the aforementioned order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 28th Feb., 2019 have been accepted by the Revenue on merits. 10. Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue have relied on the impugned order. He further urges that the machinery and machinery parts, which are manufactured/fabricated by the appellant, are mainly customs made engineering goods, as per specifications/drawing and not for the goods of general use. The same drawings have not been repeatedly used by the appellant so as to justify the ....