9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n freight paid to the transporters without considering the amount incurred towards insurance - Held that the factual basis on which the orders have been passed by the authorities below are not clear - It deem appropriate to accept the suggestion of the learned JCDR to remand the matter to the original authority. - 4505 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2011 - Mr.M.Veeraiyan, Mr.D.N.Panda, JJ. Present for the Appellant: Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri B.k.Singh, JCDR PER: M.VEERAIYAN This appeal is taken up for fresh consideration in pursuance of order dt.10.12.10 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5133/ 2009. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 When the matter was heard on 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded differential duty of Rs.49,712/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the original authority. 5.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants, referring to the contract, submits that the price of different products have been specifically agreed to as per the contract and the amount of freight and transit insurance has also been agreed upon at the rate of Rs.2000, 2600,4000 etc. depending upon volume and weight of different model of transformers. In respect of supply made to Delhi Vidyut Board, from the factory at Mirzapur city, the question of difference in freights for same model does not arise. He submits that in respect of supply made to U.P.State Corporation, the fright actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that though the show cause notice relate to supplies made to both Delhi Vidyut Board and U.P.Power Corporation, the analysis of the fact by the authorities below relate only to supply made to U.P.Power Corporation. Whether the freight supplied in different location in Delhi could be different may not differ but this fact has not been considered by the authorities below. 6.2 Relying on the decision of the tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Punjab Tractors Ltd. reported in 2010 (259) ELT 123, CCE, Jaipur-II vs. Shree Rajasthan Texchem Ltd. reported in 2009 (244) ELT 438 and Bhopal Wires Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2010 (253) ELT 681. Ld.JCDR submits that the appellants are eligible for deduction of freight and insurance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that in three cases the amounts collected was more than the amount of freight and insurance has only taken freight paid to the transporters without considering the amount incurred towards insurance. 7.3 In view of the above, we hold that the factual basis on which the orders have been passed by the authorities below are not clear. We deem it appropriate to accept the suggestion of the learned JCDR to remand the matter to the original authority. 8. To enable the same, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and order of the original authority are set aide and the mater remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
