9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from its factory to the premises of the dealers who purchase them. The amount collected as insurance premium for such insurance from the dealers exceeded the premium actually paid to the insurance company. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that this amount was payable by the appellant and would form part of the assessable value. 2. The advocate for the appellant contends that the notice is barred by limitation. It was issued in December, 1990 and related to clearances made from July, 1985 to December, 1989. He says that the question of any excess premium arose because the appellant paid to the insurance company at the beginning of every year an amount towards premium to be collected on the goods to be insured in that year, this amount b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, know that part of the amount so collected was not used for the purpose for which it was collected but was retained by the appellant. Therefore, there has been failure to declare on this element in the part of the assessable value and the extended period has been rightly invoked. 5. As to the merits, he says that the principle which the Supreme Court has adopted in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. C.C.E. is the one which was already enunciated in the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) = 1988 (18) ECR 161 (S.C.) that duty of excise is a tax on the manufacture, not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation. This principle, he says, cannot be applied to the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al proceeded on an incorrect premise and that has held in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. C.C.E. duty of excise is a tax on the manufacturer, not a tax on the profits made by a dealer on transportation and therefore set aside the Tribunal s order. By this decision, the Court has, in our view, said that any amount collected as transportation charges, but not incurred as such cannot form part of the assessable value. We fail to see why this principle would not apply to the facts of this case. The facts that the goods, the manufacturer, and the purchaser are different would not affect the application of the principle laid down. Following the Supreme Court s decision, therefore we allow the appeal and set aside the order. Consequential relief, if any. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
