9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eposition made by the supplier we find that no case for suppression of fact or misdeclaration can be made out against the respondent - Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of the assessee. - E/2218-2219/2006 and Cross Objection No. 225/2006 - Final Order Nos. A/52971-52972/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) Shri Govind Dixit, AR (DR), for the Appellant. Shri R.C. Chaure, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - These two appeals filed by Revenue are taken up for decision together as the issue involved is same. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled sheets/coils/strips chargeable to Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the non-inclusion of freight in the invoice value. It is not known to the respondent during the period of transaction and, hence, the question of suppression on the part of the respondent is not sustainable. They have relied on various case laws to submit that as job worker they are not involved in any valuation of goods and when the details are in the knowledge of the principal manufacturer suppression or fraud cannot alleged against the respondent. During the oral arguments, the learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and stated that the respondent cannot escape liability for non-inclusion of freight on inputs received from TISCO. He pleaded for restoration of original order by setting aside the impugned order. The learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30-1-2002 of the Accounts Manager of TISCO. It was also confirmed that no separate information was given regarding the freight to the respondents during the relevant time. The Accounts Manager of TISCO, the principal who supplied raw material stated that the freight is borne by them and the non-inclusion of the freight in the invoice value after 1-4-2000 is not informed separately to the respondent. Considering the factual position regarding the method of transaction between the respondent and the supplier, the documents covering such transaction, the deposition made by the supplier we find that no case for suppression of fact or misdeclaration can be made out against the respondent. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
