9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without payment of duty. Thus in accordance with the definition of 'place of removal’, in the present case the it would be factory gate, and hence, the value of the goods would be the price for delivery at the factory gate. Therefore there is no question for inclusion of freight charge in the assessable value even if the appellant have received the more amount towards the freight than the expenses on freight actually incurred. In case where the price quoted was on FOR price, the appellant have paid duty on the FOR price without claiming any deduction. Thus there is no short payment. As decided in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. (1997 (7) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) where freight amount charged by the manufacturer from the buyer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department while examining the balance sheet of the appellant found that during the period of dispute, in respect of supply of these items to Indian Railways, the freight amount actually recovered from the Railways was much higher than the freight expenses actually incurred by them. The Department was of the view that this differential freight should be part of the assessable value and on this basis a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for recovery of differential duty amounting to Rs. 7,68,375/- and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was issued by invoking the provisions of proviso for section 11AC alleging that appellant had suppressed the relevant fact from the Department. Show cause notice was adjudicated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant is more than the quantum of freight actually incurred the differential freight is not includible on the assessable value and that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. He also pleaded that in any case the duty demand is time barred as the period of dispute the price list/price declaration had been filed under Rule 173C and price for the payment of duty had been duly approved by the Assistant Commissioner and therefore there was no suppression of any fact on the part of the Appellant. 4. Shri Devender Singh, ld. Jt. CDR on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He referred to the statement of Shri R.S. Maheswari, Manager (Accounts) and authorized signatory of the appellant recorded under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
