9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al against the order in appeal dated 29-11-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh rejecting the appeal filed before her by the appellant against the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala. The Assistant Collector by his said order disallowed deductions claimed by them in their price lists under the head distribution charges and sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essable value, are actually depot expenses. Such expenses do not qualify for deduction as held by the Supreme Court in the MRF judgment [1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]. As regards the other deduction claimed by them, Shri Ali states that while the Sales Tax paid by the assessee would be eligible for deduction from the sale price for arriving at the assessable value, the case of the department here i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed goods at the time of removal but were subsequently received back for reprocessing. He has proceeded to state that the element of Sales Tax which appellant had claimed for deduction was not to be passed on to the Sales Tax Department and as such no deduction on this account appeared to be admissible. There is no evidence that the Sales Tax paid on the finished goods at the time of removal was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce evidence about their having incurred the Sales Tax liability and also not got refund of the same they would be eligible for the benefit claimed. Conversely if the department establishes that appellant had not borne the Sales Tax burden the deduction thereof may be disallowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
