9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OIO/OIA No. and date 1. E/1694/03 Mar. 1997 to Sep. 2001 28-3-02 21,72,451-00 21,72,451-00 9/CMM/09/2003 dated 26-3-03 2. E/1719/03 Mar. 1997 to Sep. 2001 28-3-02 NIL 5,00,000-00 9/CMM/09/2003 dated 26-3-03 3. E/2740/05 Oct. 2001 to Sep. 2002 and Oct. 2002 to June 2003 5-8-03 18-9-03 8,08,143-00 3,89,060-00 8,08,143-00 3,89,060-00 BR/119 TO 120/Th-1/2005 dated 17-6-05 4. E/2938/05 Oct. 2001 to Sep. 2002 and Oct. 2002 to June 2003 5-8-03 18-9-03 NIL 2,50,000-00 BR/119 TO 120/Th-1/2005 dated 17-6-05 5. E/3714/05 July 03 to Feb. 04 9-6-04 4,69,918-00 4,69,918-00 BR/184 & I85/Th-1/2005 dated 8-9-05 6. E/3533/05 July 03 to Feb. 04 9-6-04 NIL 1,00,000-00 BR/184 & 185/Th-1/2005 date 8-9-05 7. E/1847/06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e independent buyer of gypsum to M/s N.S. Shetty and also the amount incurred in shifting the gypsum within their factory are required to be included in the assessable value of the gypsum. The lower authority relying on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian Oxygen Ltd., 1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (S.C.) held that the loading and leveling charges incurred prior to clearance of goods from the place of removal is includible in the assessable value of the gypsum. Consequently the demands were confirmed and equal penalties under Sec. 11AC have been imposed for the various period mentioned above. Interest under Sec. 11AB has also been demanded. 3. S/Shri D.B. Shroff and D.H. Nadkarni ld. Advocates appeared on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tty is the appellant's man. As far as the appellant and M/s. N.S. Shetty are concerned they have an agreement under which M/s. N.S. Shetty has to carryout the task of transporting the gypsum from one place in the factory to another place and also do the leveling. No doubt the appellant incurs expenses for the above purpose. Definitely, the appellant would take in to account the expenses incurred while selling the gypsum to the cement manufacturer. As far as the removal of gypsum from the appellant's factory to the cement manufacturer's factory there is a contract between M/s. N.S. Shetty and the cement manufacturers. The amount received by M/s. N.S. Shetty for loading, unloading, transportation of gypsum from the appellant's factory by no s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or all of amounts received by M/s. N.S. Shetty flows back to the appellant. Hence these amounts cannot be added to the assessable value of gypsum cleared by the appellant. 4. There are many decisions which hold that the cost of transportation from the factory to the buyer's premises is not includible in the assessable value so long as the factory get price exists. The appellants placed reliance on the following two decisions: 1. Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad, 2006 (205) E.L.T. 750 (Tri. - Bang.) 2. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, 2004 (178) E.L.T. 966 (Tri.-Bang.) Summing up we hold tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
