Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
D.C. Mandal, G.P. Agarwal, JJ.
Synthetic Detergents Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Cochin -Respondent
Order No. 439/87-C, 439 of 1987
Decided On : 12-06-1987
J.K. Chander
D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. Appellants are not present for hearing today. In their letter No. JS/14/CUS, dated 2-5-1987 they have, however, requested that the case may be decided on merits on the basis of their written submissions in the appeal memorandum. We have, therefore, asked the learned 3.D.R. to argue the matter for the respondent.
2. We have heard the learned 3.D.R. and have also considered carefully the records of the case including the written submissions of the appellants in the Appeal Memorandum.
3. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has decided two issues, viz., (i) whether demand raised under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and (ii) whether the amount of excise duty not paid to the Government, but recovered by the appellants from the customers should be included in the assessable value of the excisable goods.
4. Collector (Appeals) has held that demand raised under Rule 10 could be confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which has replaced Rule 10. He has relied on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., MANU/MP/0126/1980 : 1981 (8) ELT 52 (M.P.) and this Tribunal's decision reported in MANU/CE/0185/1983 : 1983 (14) ELT 1927 (CEGAT) (Sriram Piston and Ring Ltd., Ghaziabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut).
Regarding second issue the Collector has held that the amount of excise duty recovered from the Customers but not paid to the Government should form part of the assessable value of the excisable goods as the amount of duty element should form part of the value of the goods and it is not the amount of duty deductible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals). The impugned order is according to law and does not merit interference. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
