9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Commissioner (Appeals), who has followed the precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also Board’s circular. We find no infirmity in the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. - E/339/2006 - A/2095/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 1-9-2009 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri R.S. Srova, JDR, for the Appellant. Adjournment request by Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned JDR Shri R.S. Srova appearing for the Revenue. The respondent has made a request for adjournment. 2. We find that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of India in case of Collector. v. Hindustan Development Corpn. Ltd. 1996 (86) E.L.T. A162 (S.C.), has upheld the Tribunal Order Nos. 209 210/95-A, dated 8-3-95 which held that expenses incurred on account of additional tests conducted on customers requisitions are not includible in the assessable value. (iii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. - 2002 (140) E.L.T. A81 (S.C.), has held that pre-delivery inspection charges and after sales service charges incurred by dealer are not includible in assessable value of vehicles. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal under erstwhile Section 4 of the Act in following cases has held that cost of additional inspection charges borne by the customers carried out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion charges along with interest is not sustainable." 5. As against the above, learned JDR relied upon another circular of Board being No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-02. However, we find that reference in the said circular is to the pre-delivery inspection charges incurred by the dealer during the warranty period. The same does not relate to the pre-inspection conducted by the manufacturer at the behest of their buyer. The issue stands discussed in detail by Commissioner (Appeals), who has followed the precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also Board's circular. We find no infirmity in the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated Pronounced in Court) - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
