9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of abatement - 2873 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2007 - [Order per] - None appears on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether accruing loading charges collected by the assessee were liable to be treated as cum-duty price and if so whether the Department was obliged to make the demand after allowing abatement for central excise duty payable on su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udible in the assessable value, however, following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (Tribunal), the assessee was entitled to abatement. We quote hereinbelow the relevant paragraph from the order of the Commissioner (A), which reads as under: "Regarding calculation of assessable value I agree with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt by way of civil appeal. 6. Shri R. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the. Department, stated that the loading charges collected by the assessee was part of cost of production and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of abatement. It was further contended on behalf of the Department that the Department had not accepted the judgment of the Tribunal in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of this Court vide Order dated 26-2-2002', which we repro duce hereinbelow : "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the stand of the respondents is correct. Various calculations have been made and we have taken into consideration the subsequent price which has been approved by the Department with effect from 8-10-1992 and it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
