9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, AR (AR) ORDER PER: B RAVICHANDRAN: These two appeals by the appellant are taken up together as they deal with same main matter. 2. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of expanded perlite ore liable to Central Excise duty. After conducting the audit of the records maintained by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssable value. He submitted that the goods were sold for delivery ex-factory and their case is covered by Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of Central Excise Act. This fact was not rebutted by the Revenue with any evidence. The question of adding any amount towards freight does not arise in their case. 4. The learned AR Shri Govind Dixit, reiterated the findings of the lower Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by the Revenue. That the appellants had arrangement for delivery of goods to the buyer after their clearance from the factory has nothing to do with the assessable value of the goods unless it is established that place of removal for valuation purpose is the delivery point at the buyer's premises. No such evidence is forthcoming in this case. Similarly, the second issue is that certain amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory gate is not reflecting the correct value and certain extra consideration is accruing to the appellant. No such evidence has been discussed in the impugned orders. In the case of CCE, Mumbai - III vs. Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 526 (Tri. - Mumbai), the Tribunal held that the contention of the Revenue that cost of transportation is allowed for exclusion only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
