9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Comm (AR) For the Respondent : Shri R V Shetty, Adv. ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the ld. Commissioner dropped the proceedings against the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of water storage tank of various capacities. After manufacturing these water storage tanks in their factory, some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to demand duty on the transportation charges collected by the respondent on account of transportation of storage tank from factory to godown. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and proceedings were initiated. The show-cause notice was adjudicated. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand against the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the final product is same. If it is cleared from the factory or from the godown. In rare cases, where the buyer takes the delivery of the storage tank themselves from the godown, they charge the transportation charges for transportation of tanks from the factory to the godown from the buyer which one paid by the buyer to the transporter directly. In these circumstances, they are not required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion charges being paid for transportation of the goods from the factory to the godown are includable in the assessable value. In these circumstances, it is immaterial whomsoever has paid the transportation charges, the same are includable in the assessable value as the goods have been cleared to the customers from the godown only. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on merits. We furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
