9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal against the said original order on the ground that cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is available provided, the same is shown separately in the invoice. Since the assessee has not shown such amount separately, the deduction in terms of rule 5 is not available. On such appeal the present impugned order was passed. The lower appellant authority held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 29-10-2004 of Commissioner (Appeals-II), Hyderabad. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of concrete and steel pipes liable to central excise duty. The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding inclusion of cost of transportation of these pipes in the assessable value. Proceedings initiated against appellants concluded in an order dated 26-08-2003 of the original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that mere non-mentioning of freight separately in the invoice will not disentitle them for abatement of transport charges from the value for duty purposes. 3. Learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower appellate authority. He contended that the sale is complete only at site in view of composite contract. 4. We have heard both sides and considered their submissions. We find that the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Further, we find that the department filed appeal against the said original order on the ground that cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery is available provided, the same is shown separately in the invoice. Since the assessee has not shown such amount separately, the deduction in terms of rule 5 is not available. On such appeal the present impugned order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
