FMC SANMAR LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises against the Order -in -Original No. 8/96 dated 12.7.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy confirming the differential duty of Rs. 49,732/ - under proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the period Jan. 1990 to October 1993, besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that appellants are the manufacturers of Safety valves. Flow meters and spares for the customers, falling under Chapter heading 8481.99, 8493.00 and 9026.00 respectively. For the goods supplied to their customers, they were supplying the spares within the warranty period as free of cost. While the appellants had filed their price -list, got it approved and cleared the goods in terms of cost construction under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, the department had adopted Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules 1975 to determine the assessable value in the present case holding that the assessee had failed to include elements such as travelling expenses, royalty charges, machinery lease rent and interest/ finance charges which formed part of administrative overheads. Hence the appeal before us.

(3.) LD . DR while reiterating the order submitted that though the goods were cleared under declared price lists, the information furnished in the price lists were apparently wrong. Mere filing of price list or a Chartered Accountant's Certificate cannot mean that there is no suppression. Nor the assessee has sought any clarification from the department as to the correctness of the assessable values. Since the assessee had not filed all the required data, suppression of facts on their part had been proved and hence the Commissioner has rightly invoked the larger period in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further contended that there is no necessity to go in for a notional figure of profit margin in order to arrive at the assessable value. Hence, he submitted that both on limitation as well as on merits, the appellant do not have any case and as such, their appeal may be rejected.