9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al/State and semi-government bodies) are arranging third party inspection of the goods at respondent s factory for which in most of the cases, payment for such inspection charges is made by the customer directly to the inspection agency. In few cases the appellant is making payment to the inspection agency on behalf of the customer and subsequently getting the reimbursement of the same from their customers. The department contends that among other charges, one of the charges i.e. said inspection charges should be included in the assessable value. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand on such inspection charges. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, to the extent the demand was dropped on the inspection charges, Revenue is before us. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vi. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II v. A. Infrastructure Ltd 2003 (160) ELT 549 (Tri.Del.) vii. Idcol Kalinga Iron Works Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar II 2007 (214) ELT 511 (Tri.-Kolkata) 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the fact is not in dispute. The inspection agency is deputed by the customer/government body. Payment for such inspection are paid by the customer directly to the inspecting agency. However, in few cases the payment of inspection charges was made by the respondent to the inspecting agency on behalf of the customer and subsequently such payment was collected as reimbursement. This arrangement has been clearly spelt out in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied upon by the Noticee in para 24 above and the case law in 2003 (153) ELT 178 (Tri-Del.) in Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad would be applicable to them. Hence, on the ratio of the orders/decisions of this Tribunal/Courts relied upon by the notice, I hold that inspection charges as in the instant case cannot form part of the assessable value." 6. In view of the above clear finding, we do not find any infirmity therein. This issue is settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur v. Bhaskar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (167) ELT 189 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that cost of additional testing conducted at customer s request and borne by the customer is not includable in the assessable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
