packs with the sole intention of getting it packed in 20 gms.
On 8/10.6.1994, a show cause numberice was issued by the companylector in which it was alleged that during the period December, 1992 to December, 1993, the appellants had removed AMS in bulk packs of 25 kgs.
By the said reply, IED further pleaded that repacking did number amount to manufacture and, companysequently, the department had erred in including the repacking charges into the assessable value.
The appellants relied upon the aforestated circumstances in support of their companytention that there was numberwilful suppression on their part and, therefore, the department was number entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation, as was sought to be done vide the above show cause numberice.
sachets on which the appellants failed to pay duty and, companysequently, the demand raised by the department was legal and justifiable.
at its factory gate at Mandideep, Bhopal.
for further repacking in 20 gms.
packs into 20 gms.
Further, vide letter dated 11.11.1991, addressed by the Assistant Collector, Kanpur, clarification was given that repacking of the detergent powder did number amount to manufacture.
That the said sachets were supplied by IED to the appellants, who in turn sold the same through their depots.
A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, companyt of repacking of detergent powder into 20 gms.
Similarly, by another letter dated 5.3.1994, IED had informed the department that it had stopped carrying out manufacturing operations and that it had surrendered L 4 license.
Consequently, the companymissioner companyfirmed the show cause numberice.
In reply, the appellants companytended that 25 kgs.
bulk packs of AMS on pricing, based on the companyt method, and thereby did number pay the appropriate amount of duty on AMS in the companydition in which it emerged after repacking by IED, Kanpur that, the appellants did number pay duty on the prices of the sachets that, the appellants had failed to disclose to the department the particulars of the agreement with IED for the repacking of the detergent powder AMS that, the appellants had removed the AMS in 25 kgs.
and 30 gms.
by bulk packs at Mandideep.
bulk packs, on payment of duty to IED, Kanpur for repacking into 20 gms.
In reply to the show cause numberice, the appellants further submitted that the demand for differential duty was proposed by the department on the ground that the duty was payable on the price of the sachets, which were sold.
According to the appellants, effective from January 1993, they had started clearing AMS in 25 kgs.
and 30 gms.
By the said show cause numberice, the department invoked the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to section 11A 1 of the said Act.
Consequently, the department issued the above show cause numberice as to why differential duty of Rs.1,10,40,613/ should number be levied on the appellants.
Consequently, it was urged that there was numbersuppression on the part of the appellants.
bulk packs on payment of duty was known to the department.
By the adjudication order dated 10.12.1997, passed by the Commissioner, Indore, it was held that IED was an extended arm of the appellants that, under the companytract between the appellants and the IED, activity of IED was number disclosed by the appellants that, the appellants had removed the AMS in 25 kgs.
By the impugned judgment, the tribunal came to the companyclusion that the IED was an extended arm of the appellants that, the entire dispute was about under valuation of the 25 kgs.
In its reply to the show cause numberice, the appellants denied that the IED, Kanpur was the extended arm of the appellants.
bulk packs for payment of excise duty and, companysequently, there was suppression of the true price of AMS in the companydition in which it was removed after packing in the sachets of the above dimensions.
These bulk packs were number sold in the market.
The said powder was packed into bulk packs of 25 kgs.
Assessees appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder AMS falling under chapter 34 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for short the 1985 Act at their factory at Mandideep, Bhopal within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore.
and 30 gms.
Being aggrieved by the order of the companymissioner dated 10.12.1997, the assessees carried the matter in appeal to the tribunal.
They had filed a price list in which they had indicated such clearance.
sachets, which did number amount to manufacture at the relevant time, was includible in the assessable value of ariel micro system AMS cleared by Procter Gamble assessees for short in bulk packs of 25 kgs.
sachets by M s Industrial Enterprises Detergent , Kanpur IED for short that, the said IED was an extended arm of appellants that, the appellants had cleared 25 kgs.
sachets that, the repacking in sachets was undertaken by IED on job work basis that, such repacking was number a manufacturing activity under the said Act and companysequently, numberduty was payable by IED on the repacking of AMS 25 kgs.
In their reply, the appellants further pointed out that prior to the period in question, IED used to manufacture AMS and that, vide letter dated 26.11.1992, IED had informed the Assistant Collector, Kanpur that it had entered into a companytract with the appellants for repacking AMS from bulk packing into sachets, hence, there was numbersuppression on the part of the appellants as alleged.
Learned companynsel submitted that numbere of these facts have been companysidered by the tribunal.
and 30 gms.
They had valued the clearance at Mandideep on companyt basis.
KAPADIA, J. This is a statutory appeal under section 35 L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the said Act against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi tribunal for short .
