9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirement of pre-deposit. [2] In short, the petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing of automobile parts and doing job work of the various manufacturers. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Principal M/s. Eicher Motors Pvt. Ltd for manufacture of automobile cabin parts. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner had received certain amounts as "operational expenses" in the form of liquidated damages for the failure on the part of the principal to lift agreed quantity from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said amount was received not against the supply of goods but against the non supply of goods, therefore, it was not part of the assessable value. The Commissioner after giving show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (54) ELT 333 (Tribunal), Collector Vs. Spring Fresh Drinks reported in 1997(92) ELT A70 (SC), CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. Bhagwati Oxygen Ltd reported in 2000(117) ELT 647(Tribunal), Inox Air Products Ltd Vs. CCE, Nagpur & Mumbai-I reported in 2001(134) ELT 224(Tri. Mumbai), CCE; Belgaum Vs. Praxair India Ltd reported in 2008(223) ELT 596, Faridkod Co.Op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE; Ludhiana reported in 2004(171) ELT 174 (Tri.Del.), CCE; Bombay Vs. Ram Decorative & Industries Ltd reported in 2000(124) ELT 659 (Tribunal) and Bhartia Cutler Hammer Ltd Vs. CCE; New Delhi reported in 1998 (99) ELT 436 (Tribunal) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner before this Court support his submission that the operational compensation amount received by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co.Ltd reported in 2007(208)ELT 181 (Tribunal-Bang), cited by the counsel for the petitioner, but the Tribunal has failed to consider its effect. In the matter of Jindal Praxair (supra) the Tribunal's South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, after referring to other judgments of the tribunal has taken the view that the NTOP charges payable, on the buyer failure to take the minimum quantity assured by them, are not in the nature of additional consideration and they are not includable in the assessable value. [9] The impugned order of the Tribunal also shows that the Tribunal after finding that it was not a case of total waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit, did not consider the issue of partial waiver. [10] Therefore, we are of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
