2005 (4) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d in tin containers, each container being with a handle. M/s. TPCL, during the period of dispute supplied these containers to M/s. APCL. But the handle for the container was fixed by M/s. TPCL in the premises of M/s. APCL. The value of handle was claimed to have been included in the assessable value of the container borne on the relevant invoice issued by M/s. TPCL to M/s. APCL. This claim was contested by the Department in a show cause notice issued to both the parties. The notice raised a demand of duty on M/s. TPCL for the period April'98 to March'2000 alleging that the cost of handle was not included in the invoiced price of the container. It also proposed penalties on both the parties under Rule 173Q, apart from proposing a sep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 which granted exemption to inputs and capital goods captively consumed. Ld. Counsel submits that this legal position stand settled through a line of decisions of this Tribunal, a few of which are given below :- (i) Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (136) E.L.T. 617 (T) = 2000 (36) RLT 619 (CEGAT)]. (ii) Isgec Covema Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy [2002 (147) E.L.T. 368 (T) = 2001 (46) RLT 638 (CEGAT-Del.)] (iii) Thermax Surface Coatings Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2002 (148) E.L.T. 783 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Ld. Counsel for M/s. APCL submits that any penalty had not been proposed under Rule 209A against them in the show cause notice. 3. The DR reiterates the f....