In this declaration, the assessee claimed deduction from depot sale price on account of equalized freight and on account of ROC on durable and returnable companytainers i.e. glass bottle packing of 1000 ml.
According to the appellate authority, the assessee had failed to provide the requisite data justifying the extent of deduction on the aforestated two items.
Hence, the assistant companymissioner ordered provisional assessment of the aforestated price declaration filed by the assessee.
They also filed the price list in part I effective from 1.3.1994 in respect of plastic bottled packs of 1000 ml.
Therefore, the assessee filed a declaration of assessable value under rule 173 C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of aforestated brands of aerated water effective from 1.4.1994.
M s Apex Traders, Sahibabad hereinafter referred to as the assessee were engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters of brands, namely, Thums Up, Limca and Gold Spot in the pack sizes of 500 ml.
Aggrieved by the aforestated decision on ROC and on equalized freight, the department carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner Appeals , Ghaziabad, who took the view that although ROC was admissible as held by this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Indian Oxygen Ltd. reported in 1988 36 ELT 730, the burden was on the assessee to provide records data and certificates to justify the extent of deduction claimed by the assessee for ROC and for equalized freight.
The assessee claimed deduction from the wholesale trade price on account of freight and rent on companytainers ROC .
The assessee filed its price list in part I effective from 1.3.1994 in respect of 1000 ml.
glass bottle packs of durable and returnable nature.
Aggrieved by the decision of the companymissioner, the assessee carried the matter in the appeal to the tribunal, which took the view that the issue of ROC was already settled by the decision of the companymissioner dated 17.6.1997 in the case of M s Coolade Beverages Ltd. As regards deduction on account of actual freight, the tribunal took the view that since the assessee had claimed Rs.0.60 per crate as deduction whereas the actual expenditure per crate was Rs.3/ per crate as certified by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee and since the depot price and the factory gate price were the same, the appellate authority had erred in interfering with the order of the adjudicating authority.
and 500 ml.
By Finance Act, 1994, the Central Excise Rules were amended and the practice of filing of price list was abolished.
Ultimately, the assistant companymissioner finalized the provisional assessment vide order dated 26.5.1998.
Consequently, the tribunal restored the order of the assistant companymissioner and set aside the order of the companymissioner.
Accordingly, the abatement claimed by the assessee herein from sale price on account of ROC effective from 1.4.1994 was allowed.
falling under chapter 22 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
of number returnable nature of brands, namely, Thums Up, Limca and Gold Spot.
and 500 ml.
of the aforestated brands of aerated water.
and 1000 ml.
The department found that the abatement claimed on account of freight in the price declaration was on the higher side as companypared to what was claimed in the price list submitted in March, 1994.
In the circumstances, the appellate authority allowed the departments appeal.
