Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In circular dated 27/02/2003 ibid, the Board clarified that the above instructions would equally apply to goods assessed under Section 4A also. In other words, if the cost of reusable containers (glass bottles, crates, etc.) is amortised and included in the cost of products to be assessed under Section 4A, the question of adding any further amount towards such cost does not arise except where audit of accounts reveals that the cost of reusable containers has not been amortised and included in the value of the product. In both the impugned orders, the learned Commissioner considered the Board's clarification and proceeded to hold that, as per the Chartered Accountant's certificates produced by the assessee, the cost of reusable containers was amortised and included in the cost of 'Bisleri' water and hence there was no question of including the refundable deposits collected from ultimate consumers, in the MRP of the product. We have also perused a sample of the Chartered Accountant's certificates available on record. In these certificates, the Chartered Accountant certified, "on the basis of the records and documents produced before me and information and explanations given to me by M/s. Parle (Exports) Limited", that the company had collected /refunded certain deposits during the period from 1/01/2000 to 30/11/2000. Another sample of certificate indicates that the cost of empty container was amortised on a certain basis and the amortised value included, in the MRP of 20 litre Bisleri Water, Rs. 70/-, and in the MRP of 5 litre Bisleri water, Rs. 25/-. This certificate was also issued "on the basis of records and the documents produced before me and information and explanation given to me by M/s. Parle (Exports) Limited". The learned Commissioner apparently accepted these certificates to be conclusive evidence of amortisation of the cost of empty containers and its inclusion in the MRP of the 'Bisleri' water. There is no indication, in the impugned orders, that any of the relevant records and documents having been independently verified by the Commissioner. It was incumbent upon him to have an audit of accounts under Section 14A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 done to ascertain whether the fact certified by the Chartered Accountant was correct. In our view, the Board's circulars impliedly made it incumbent upon the Commissioner to take all measures within his command to ensure that the cost of the reusable containers has been amortised and included in the MRP of the product, before taking a view in favour of the assessee. Before us, the learned JCDR and the learned counsel have also agreed on the applicability of Section 14A of the Act to the peculiar factual situation obtaining in this case. The remand order passed by this bench was not to be understood as a green signal for blindly accepting the Chartered Accountant's certificates. It should have been read with the applicable provisions of law and the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are constrained to allow both these appeals by way of remand, with a request to the Commissioner to pass fresh speaking orders on the valuation issue after taking such measures as indicated herein and giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7. Before parting with the matter, we would like to mention that M/s. Parle (Exports) Limited merged with M/s. Parle Bisleri Limited and M/s. Acqua Bisleri (India) Ltd. w.e.f. 01/12/2000 as per the High Court's order dated 19/09/2001 and that the company is known as Parle Bisleri Private Limited w.e.f. the said date. We have added this information, which came to our notice during the course of hearing only, because the period of dispute is partly before and partly after the date of merger of the companies.