9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied to M/s. Central Coalfields Limited under specific agreement. It is admitted that goods had been cleared on payment of appropriate duty on the prices shown in the invoices. Subsequently it was found that appellant had collected Rs. 47,358.56 in reimbursement of the expenses of pre-despatch inspection conducted by Directorate of Inspection, DGS D and paid initially by the appellant. It was also found that on the basis of the price escalation clause in the Agreement, prices had escalated and the appellant had raised debit bills against the buyers and had not paid excise duty on the amounts covered by the debit bills. Accordingly, notice was issued making the above averments and proposing demand of differential duty on the amounts supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer who in the ordinary course would have conducted inspection on its own to ensure quality had conducted any such inspection; in that view and going by the terms of Clause 7 of the Agreement we are inclined to agree with the appellant that the pre-despatch inspection was conducted at the option of the buyer in addition to normal inspection by the manufacturer. That being, the inspection fee cannot be included in the assessable value. 4. The next contention relates to the escalated price covered by the debit bills raised by the appellant on the buyers. It is accepted that the Agreement was finalised on the basis of DGS D prices, the buyers being Government of India Undertakings. It is also accepted that under the terms of the Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order placed by Government of Bihar. In the remarks column it is seen stated that the buyer had refused to accept the increased price shown in the debit bill on the ground that the original price had already been paid before the price increase. As against Item C(ii) at page 20 is referred to another order. In the remarks column it is seen stated that the revised bill had to be cancelled since the entire supply was made prior to the price increase and the buyers had refused to accept the revised bill. As against item relating to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. it is seen stated that in the remarks column that the bill was revised due to calculation error caused due to quotation of wrong rates in the supplementary bill. Reference is also made to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. Penalty has been imposed on consideration of both the counts. That the inspection charges cannot be included in the assessable value must find reflection in the quantum of penalty. In regard to the escalated price it is contended that the appellant acted on a bona fide belief that the duty would be payable on the escalated price only when the price was finally settled between the parties. We find no material at all before us to support that the appellant had any such belief. It is difficult to accept the belief as bona fide particularly since admittedly appellant had received part payments of the escalated price in some cases and did not pay duty on such amounts. We are, therefore, in agreement with the adjudicating authority that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
