9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 688X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable value. Profit accrued from transportation charges adopting average cost process is not determining factor while actual cost incurred in respect of each consignment under consideration needed testing to make an allegation of undervaluation. While deciding the appeals of the assessee learned Commissioner has made observation that whatever transportation charges was paid that has suffered service tax - When this was available on records and service tax being levied on transportation cost from 2006 onwards, adjudicating authority should have considered that aspect to examine assessable value - But that was also not done – Decided in favour of Assessees and against Revenue. - Appeal No.E/165/2008-Ex, Appeal No.E/2587/2009-Ex, Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 33 E/2136/11 06.11.2009 01.10.2008 to 30.03.2009 13,65,114 1,00,000 CCE, Panchkula vs. M/s.Indian Sugar General Engineering 34 E/2137/11 07.07.2009 01.06.2008 to 31.12.2008 11,74,562 1,00,000 CCE, Panchkula vs.M/s.Indian Sugar General Engineering 35 E/2138/11 26.05.2010 01.08.2009 to 31.12.2009 4,94,707 1,00,000 CCE, Panchkula vs. M/s.Indian Sugar General Engineering 36 E/2139/11 06.05.2010 01.04.2009 to 31.07.2009 3,30,973 50,000 CCE, Panchkula vs.M/s.Indian Sugar General Engineering 37 E/2140/11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reight the excess realization should be set off against differential short recovery of freight from the customers. Despite such a clear submission, ld.adjudicating authority did not turn up to examine the issue. Only an abrupt conclusion was drawn to hold that any freight collected over and above actual cost incurred shall be liable to duty with an observation that the same shall form part of the assessable value. 4. According to the assessee, while aforesaid proposal was in the above five appeals reverse is the decision by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeals listed at Sr.No.33 to 38 of the cause list filed by the Revenue as depicted above. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while reaching to his conclusion has categorically held that charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come out anywhere. Duty is payable in respect of each and every clearances and transportation cost necessary for making delivery under the term FOR destination is necessarily to be included in the assessable value without any average calculation method when such average cost of transportation is not permissible under law. What that is permissible in the law is that actual cost incurred for the delivery at the buyers point is necessarily to be included in the assessable value. Such clear and distinct exercise has not been done in respect of each and every clearance. 9. It is noticed that the appellant has made several averments in its defence reply. But ld.Adjudicaitng authority did not focus his attention on the substance of allegation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
