9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 456 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - includibility - Pre-Delivery Inspection charges - Held that - the issue whether pre-delivery inspection charges is to be included in the assessable value is settled in favor of the appellant in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-II Versus LUBI SUBMERSIBLES LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 35 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that PDI charges recovered at the instance of the buyer are not includible in the assessable value - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Inclusion of Pre-Delivery Inspection charges in the assessable value. The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) charges in the assessable value by the appellants engaged in the manufacture of Fenoplast PVC colliery conveyor belting. The original authority dropped the proceedings, but on appeal by the department, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand raised for two different periods. The appellant argued that the inspection was conducted by a third party as per the contract and was at the behest of the buyer, thus not includible in the assessable value. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their argument. For subsequent periods, the Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demands following the same decisions. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the issue of whether PDI charges should be included in the assessable value was settled in favor of the appellant based on the decisions cited. The Tribunal noted that for subsequent periods, the demand had been dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on similar reasoning. The Tribunal referred to a specific paragraph from a previous order-in-appeal where it was stated that PDI conducted at the instance of the buyer and borne by the buyer/customer should not be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal also observed that the department had not filed any appeal against the order dropping the demand. Considering the settled issue and the decisions cited, the Tribunal held that the demand was unsustainable. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The Tribunal made this decision in light of the facts presented and the legal precedents supporting the appellant's position.
|
