9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I v. Johnson Pumps (I) Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 474 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) - issue before the Larger Bench, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 49 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) was only on inspection done on compulsory PDI done in all cases by the appellant in that case. It was not the case before the Larger Bench that PDI inspections were done at the instance of the buyer. In view of the interpretation made by this bench in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II v. Johnson Pumps (I) Ltd. (2009 (9) TMI 474 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) PDI charges recovered at the instance of the buyer are not includible in the assessable value and accordingly appeal filed by the revenue is required to be rejected - Decided against Revenue. - E/562/2007-DB and Cross Objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been filed by the respondent M/s. Luby Submersibles Ltd. emphasizing that their products are being used by individuals, agriculturists, industrialists or the Government and in all these cases goods are completely tested and ready for use as per the prescribed norms. It is their ground that nobody even asks for a trial run but some of the government buyers in certain cases impose a condition that goods should again be tested from an approved laboratory before lifting the goods from respondent s factory. Such testing done for the second time on the basis of the option exercised by the buyer is not required to be added to the assessable value. 2. Shri Jitendra Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue argued that Pre-Delivery Inspectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 4 and 5 : 4. Apart from the various decisions discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals), we also note that he has taken note of the Board s Circular which is in favour of the assessee. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of his order as under : I further find that under erstwhile Section 4, which existing prior to 1-7-2000. (i) The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in case of Collector of C.E., Jaipur v. M/s. CIMMCO Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 167 (S.C.) has upheld the Tribunal Order Nos. 296-301/94-A, dated 19-10-94 reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal), holding that inspection charges incurred by the customers are not includable in assessable value especially when they have a full-fledged quality as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tood the test of legal scrutiny as Tribunal s judgment has been otherwise and consequently C.B.E. C. withdrew its subsequent Circular No. 355/77/97-CX, dated 19-11-97 and 435/I/99-CX, dated 12-1-99 vide Circular No. 681/72/2002-CX, dated 12-12-02 in the context of old Section 4 of CEA, 1944. The C.B.E. C. has issued a Circular dated 12-5-00 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 45] in which in Para 2.2 it has been clarified that the concept of new transaction value under Section 4 has same scope as that of old Section 4 of the Act and Valuation Rules. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that the third party s inspection charges initially paid by the appellants and subsequently reimbursed by the buyers is not includibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
