9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant imported bright yellow sulphuric crude under Bill of Entry No. 000246 dated 15-6-2007. The Bill of Entry was assessed provisionally on 15th June, 2008 and was finally assessed on 15th July, 2008. The appellant filed refund claim of Rs. 20,771/- on the ground of earning of dispatch money, out of transportation cost of consignment forming part of assessable value on the subject consignment. The refund claims were rejected by the lower adjudicating authority on the ground that Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules allowed only addition of certain items of cost to the transaction value and there is no provision for deduction of the element, as such, the dispatch money cannot be treated o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention, he has placed reliance in the cases of Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. C.C.Ex. - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) and Collector of Customs, Madras v. Coromondal Fertilizers Ltd. reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 451 (Tribunal). 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Department reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made from both sides. We find that in so far as the refund claim filed by the appellants is concerned, the show-cause notice was issued for rejecting of the refund claim of the appellant on the following grounds : (i) Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules allows only addition of certain items of cost and not deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spatch money which the appellants have got on quick turn around of the vessel. Undisputedly, demurrage charges whenever incurred are added to the assessable value. On the same analogy, the deduction of the dispatch money earned for unloading the vessel before stipulated time, should also be allowed. The Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Coronnondal Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) has held as under : "13. .......................................................................However, we do not consider it reasonable that elements of administrative overheads should be included right upto the Board of Directors' level. Only staff and officers directly dealing with the wharf work and one level of higher supervisory staff need be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case with regard to deduction granted by the Shipping Company as despatch money on the cost of transport. When this point is clear then the question gets answered automatically inasmuch as that when this despatch money is a part of freight, such deduction granted will be eligible for exclusion from the assessable value, because only the noted cost of transport would be added to the assessable value. To this extent the Tribunal does not agree that the cost of transport is a fixed one as contended by Revenue in the grounds of appeal. Further we notice from the case of B.H.E.L v. C.C. the Tribunal has held "the rebate allowed by the ship lines to the appellants was admissible for deduction to arrive at assessable value. The fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
