9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. Asthana, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mathur, AR JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench): After having heard both sides duly represented by Shri L P Ashtana, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Mathur learned DR for revenue in respect of both the appeals, we find that M/s. Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as INDAL) had entered into a contract with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven an advance of Rs.3,75,45,200/-. In addition amount of Rs.1,06,000/- approx. were given to the M/.s INDAL for special test charges for conducting the above test on the goods before delivery of the same. 4. Revenues contention is that such advance received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation of India are required to be added in the assessable value of the contractors in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grid Corporation in the hands of present appellant, who is only the job worker, cannot be said to be in accordance with the law. Firstly, the said amount was never received by the appellant and secondly the Revenue has not shown that on account of receipt of said advance by M/s. INDAL the assessable value in the hands of present appellant gets depressed. It is well settled law that for adding noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
