9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Board’s circular relates to pre-delivery inspection conducted by the manufacturer itself. There is no dispute in the present case that such inspection was being carried out by the respondent at the instance of their customers and from a third party. The expenses originally incurred by them, were being reimbursed by their clients. As such, nothing came to the pocket of the respondent. The Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the original order confirming the demand of duty of Rs. 60,432/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty Two Only) and of Rs. 39,204/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand, Two Hundred and Four Only). 2. The issue involved is as to whether the third party additional inspection charges incurred by the customers on behalf of their customers and subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in terms of new Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, it is the transaction value which has to be held as the assessable value. By relying upon the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Union of India v. Bomaby Tyre International Ltd. as reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), they have contended that all components which enrich the value, giving marketability to the articles, have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the assessee s customers could have paid the entire inspection charges to the party inspecting the goods instead of routing the same though the assessee, in which case, the question of the same being added in the assessable value of the assessee s product, would not arise. 5. We also find that Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the respondent. Mere non-disclosure of such collection or non-payment of duty, by itself, does not amount to mala fide intention on the part of the assessee so as to invoke the extended period. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held the demand to be barred by limitation. 7. We, accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. (Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
