2014 (11) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent : Shri A.V. Naik, Adv. JUDGEMENT Per: Ashok Jindal: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the issue in favour of the respondent on account of valuation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are manufacture of machinery for pharmaceutical industry. The respondents are clearing the said goods to their buyer o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 3. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. A request has been received for adjournment on the ground that the respondents have not received copy of the appeal filed by Commissioner. Therefore a copy of appeals may kindly be supplied and matter be adjourned. 4. After hearing the Ld. A.R. we are of the opinion that the appeal itself can be disposed off at this stage, we therefore taken up t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on charges over and above actually paid by them. It is the contention of the respondent that goods have been sold at their factory gate and whatever the transportation charges paid by them on behalf of the buyers have been charged through debit note. In these circumstances, we do agree with the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the various decision by this Tribunal. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X