Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Aditya Appliances Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I on 22 June, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. I
Appeal No. E/395/04
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-1/323/04 dated 22.10.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I.)
For approval and signature
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Aditya Appliances Pvt Ltd
Appellant
(Represented by: Mr. Anil Balani, Advocate)
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
Respondent
(Represented by: Mr. V.K. Singh, Additional Commissioner (A.R)) CORAM:
Honble Mr.S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 30.05.2012 Date of Decision: 30.05.2012 ORDER NO..
Per: S.S. Kang
1. Heard both sides.
2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Philips brand steam irons falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the appellant suppressed the fact that the cost of moulds used in the manufacture of the plastic parts is being borne by M/s Phillips India Ltd (Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Division) (hereinafter referred to as M/s PDAP for short). As the appellants were clearing the finished goods to M/s PDAP, thus the same is additional consideration flowing to the appellants.
4. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The appellant filed appeal and the same is dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The contention of the appellant is that the appellants were procuring the raw materials such as plastic moulds fromM/s Philips India Plastic and Metal Ware Factory (hereinafter referred to as PPMF for short). M/s PPMF are discharging duty on the plastic parts which also include the mould amortization cost. However, mould amortization cost is not recovered from the appellant as the costs were directly recovered from M/s PDAP. Appellants are manufacturing goods out of the plastic moulds which were solely supplied to M/s PDAP on payment of appropriate duty. As the duty has been paid after taking into consideration of the mould amortization cost by the supplier of the input, therefore, the demand is not sustainable.
6. The contention of the Revenue is that the contract for supply of finished goods to M/s PDAP is an oral contract and appellants were paying duty on the goods manufactured out of the plastic moulds without taking into consideration of the mould amortization cost. Therefore, the demand is rightly made.
7. We find that the appellants are manufacturing goods for M/s PDAP and the plastic mould and components procured from M/s PPMF. M/s PPMF is paying duty after taking into consideration of the mould amortization cost. The mould amortization cost is not paid by the appellant and the mould amortization cost is directly paid by M/s PDAP and the appellants were clearing the goods to M/s PDAP on payment of duty. While arriving at the assessable value of the goods cleared to M/s DPAP the mould amortization cost is not taken into consideration by appellant. Therefore, we find merit in the contention of the Revenue that the same is additional consideration. Hence we find no infirmity in the impugned order.
8. The appeal is dismissed.
(Operative part pronounced in Court.) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President rk 2