VASAVADATTA CEMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved with the OIA No. 160/2005 dated 31 -8 -2005 by which the credit of Rs. 3,840/ - availed on invoices raised for development charges of the ware bloc machine and traveling wheel was rejected. The Revenue issued Show Cause Notice to disallow the credit. The same was confirmed with like sum as penalty and appropriate interest.

(2.) THE appellants contention is that the development charges were a part of the manufacturing cost of the machine and machinery. These charges, as per Section 4, were part of the Transaction Value and the duty paid by the manufacturer was, therefore, entitled for Cenvat credit. They relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 395 (T). They also referred to the two invoices involved in the matter and submitted that those invoices were not for removal of Capital goods but only for additional charges recovered under Section 4 towards development of patterns and were included in the Transaction Value. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the contention on the ground that mere reference in relation to invoices of drawing design no. or code no. does not establish a definite link as these references may relate to other supplies also. The learned Consultant points out to the invoices and reference to the price mentioned therein. He submits that all the particulars are very clear and clearly establish the payment of development charges, which is part of the Transaction Value and, therefore, rejection is not on correct premises.

(3.) THE learned JDR reiterates the departmental view.