9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (117) E.L.T. 316 (T)]. The main issue for consideration in the case was the valuation of sheet glass manufactured by the appellant. Para 10 of this Tribunal order, which contained the direction for a fresh determination of assessable value read as under : 10. In view of what has been stated above, we set aside the order impugned, namely, Order-in-Original No. 64/89, dated 22-12-1989 and remand the entire issue to the concerned adjudicating authority who has jurisdiction over this issue for finding out the price at the factory gate after giving all permissible deductions as per decision of the Supreme Court and of this Tribunal and to make assessments in accordance with law for the period 8-11-81 to 31-1-85. After finding out the duty le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ximum price at which goods were sold at Delhi Deport in each month . The appellants have also submitted that the Commissioner has also gone on the presumption that Contingent Liability Charge had been collected from all depots, while it is on record that from 2 depots there was no such collection. In addition, the Commissioner has treated the collection on account of Contingent Liability charge at about Rs. 1.31 Crores for the entire period despite a Certificate produced by the appellants from a Chartered Accountant showing the amount involved as only about Rs. 1.11 Crores. 4. Apart from the contentions on the question of valuation the appellants have also submitted that it was not permissible on the part of the Commissioner to impose a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted out that no deduction could be allowed towards theft, pilferage, non-delivery charges etc. inasmuch as these items have no relevance for assessment of the goods on ex-factory basis. 6. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. Some of the grievances of the appellants are well founded. It is well settled that additional packing which is provided for securing the goods during the transportation is not to form part of the assessable value. Wooden packing has been specifically held to be such an item in the decisions relied upon by the assessee s learned Consultant. Therefore, the appellants claim for deduction of cost of wooden crates was required to be allowed while computing the assessable v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
