9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sankararaman, Member (T)]. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of excisable product, had filed price list dated 5-9-1988 in Part II in respect of certain goods fabricated by them for supply to their customers. The same was approved by the Assistant Collector and respondent had cleared the goods paying duty in accordance with such approved price list. Subsequently, the department found t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned DR and proceed to dispose of the appeal. 3. The main thrust in the appeal which was referred to by the learned DR in his argument is that the Collector (Appeals) erred in holding that the testing charges on account of third party s inspection at customers cost is not includible in the assessable value. It is further stated that if a manufacturer sets up a quality control unit to check the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector (Appeals) since the inspection of the tank was vital from the point of view of safety and quality and hence the charges incurred on account of inspection should have been included in the assessable value of the goods. 4. We have taken note of the contentions raised in the appeal. The purchase order relating to the goods in question has been placed on the respondent by the Vikram Sarabhai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the same was not includible. That was in Shree Pipes Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462. The finding of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal by the Collector. We hold that the ratio of the aforesaid decision will squarely apply to the present case. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Collector (Appeals). We uphold the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
