9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The need for an elaborate discussion on this issue is obviated in the wake of the CESTAT judgment in the case of Hindustan Gas & Industries Ltd. (1995 (3) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) which covers an identical issue in identical circumstances. - This aspect, the absence of optionality and the existence of every buyer insisting upon tests by RITES do not appear to have been present in Hindustan Development Corporation v. C.C.E. In that case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of the fact that the inspection charges were paid, not by the manufacturer, but incurred by the Railways, the only buyer. The ratio of that judgment, and of the judgment in Shree Pipes [1991 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e request of the buyer and for which buyer has to pay are not includible in the assessable value. 3. Revenue filed this appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has incorrectly held the inspection by RITES to be additional/secondary inspection and that the inspection by RITES was not optional. The Revenue further asserted that the issue is fully covered by CESTAT judgment in the case of Hindustan Gas Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 481 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. We have considered the matter. It is seen that sale of Inserts was to Railways or to others on behalf of Railways and inspection by RITES was a necessary condition of sale. It was not in the nature of secondary or optional inspection and therefore the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection takes place. In no case can the appellant sell the goods without testing by RITES. The inserts manufactured by the appellant cannot be sold unless they are tested and approved by RITES. They therefore do not become marketable till that such testing takes place. As we have seen, it is the buyer who pays the testing charges to the appellant. It is contended that the buyer is in turn reimbursed these charges by Railways. We have to keep in mind that the sleeper manufacturers sell, not inserts themselves, but sleepers, fitted with the inserts. As far as the appellant is concerned, it recovers, in every case, the charges for inspection from its buyers, the Railways or the sleeper manufacturers. The costs incurred for such testing woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
