2006 (11) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. The Revenue has challenged the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 27/2004 dated 25-8-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A), Visakhapatnam. The Revenue proceeded to add in the assessable value, an amount of US $ 3.8 per Metric Tonne to the value of the imported goods on the ground that these charges pertain to freight, which are required to be added in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) Transportation from wharf to their stock pile. Therefore, the Order-in-Original held that they are in the nature of cost of transport, which is includable in terms of Rule 9(2)(a) of the said Rules. However, the Commissioner (A) after detailed findings held in the light of the ruling rendered by the Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Industries and five others v. CC (P), Ahmedabad/Mumbai b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rule 9(2)(b). Therefore, she held that these charges in the present case need not be individually determined or ascertained if one per cent cost are loaded on to value as per proviso to Rule 9(2). Therefore, she accepted the assessee s plea and allowed their appeal. Revenue is aggrieved with this order. 4. The learned JCDR took us through the OIO and the grounds raised in the appeal memo. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X