2016 (11) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ccountant who had not included this amount to be reimbursed by the buyer - It may be mentioned that the appellant cannot claim advantage of his own mistakes as per the maxim COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA MEMO HABERE DEBET In the instant case, the inspection charges and excise duty were rightly levied. But due to the mistake of the assessee-appellant, the same were not recovered from the buyer of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ta, ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that as per the ratio in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II vs. Lubi Submersibles Ltd. 2015 (317) ELT 299 (Tri. Ahmd.), the excise duty is not applicable on the goods inspected by the agency of the buyer, so the charges of ₹ 12,450/- is illegal. 2. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue, Sh. G. R. Singh relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 5. In the instant case, the inspection charges and excise duty were rightly levied. But due to the mistake of the assessee-appellant, the same were not recovered from the buyer of the goods. 6. In view of above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower authorities. 7. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X