9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he differential duty demanded in the show cause notice is correctly payable by them...... And in other cases transport by public/private carriers the O.S.E.B. pays Rs. 1.35 per ton per km. as transport charges which include loading and unloading charges as evident from OSEB s Circular supra... Learned Commissioner also held - Coming to the limitation aspect, I find that M/s. O.C.I. did neither declare such charges in their invoice nor did inform the department regarding incurring of such charges while opting for invoice price under Rule 173C (11). What they stated in the invoice is transportation charges include such packing, loading and forwarding charges. Therefore, this is undoubtedly a clear case of suppression of fact and wilful misd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ires and as such, are never packed. So, there was no question of realisation for packing charges; that no forwarding charges were realised nor the Department has produced any proof; that no loading charges of Rs. 8.00 per Pole are realised when the goods are transported by M/s. Orissa State Electricity Board because trucks are ordinary trucks and not specially designed to carry such Poles and a special type of loading was resorted to, keeping in view these Poles in the trucks of the State Electricity Board and therefore, the charges were paid by State Electricity Board and were reimbursed to the loaders; that unless there was emergency, such trucks of O.S.E.B. were never used; instead, private trucks designed for the purpose with longer bod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1997 (19) RLT 668. He also sought and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Herculean Voice v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal) = 1997 (21) RLT 805. He, further, relied upon another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 76. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that their case was squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the above cases in so far as the limitation aspect is concerned. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed with consequential reliefs. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri S.N. Ghosh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is includible in the assessable value or not. We find that there is a lot of case law on the subject. The Courts have consistently held that the expenditures incurred upto the time of delivery of the goods at the factory gate, are to be included in the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Having regard to the various decisions of this Tribunal on the subject and case law settled by the Apex Court, we hold that the charges are includible in the assessable value. So, the appellants appeal fails on merits. 6. In so far as the limitation is concerned, we find that though there are certain decisions of the Tribunal holding otherwise, but the Tribunal has consistently been taking a view that in case the Dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
