9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand set aside. Whether hundi charges given to the principal manufacturer is admissible deduction to the appellant being job worker or not? - Held that: - in an identical set of facts in the case of Indian Pistons Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai [2007 (9) TMI 89 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], it was held that Since appellant is not involved in buyer’s settings with bank, then interest paid by buyer to bank for delay in remittances are not includible in assessable value - the hundi charges are not included in the assessable value. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1729-1731/2008, E/2601,2791 & 2912/2009 - A/61620-61625/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority was of the view that the appellant is entitled for this deduction and no show cause notice was warranted but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that outward transportation charges and hundi discount are required to be included in the assessable. Therefore in subsequent adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) followed the same and consequent to this appellant is before us. 3. After hearing the parties, the following issues have emerged: (a) Whether the outward transportation charges are required to be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant as job worker or not (b) no hundi charges given to the principal manufacturer is not admissible deduction to the appellant being job worker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of the goods by M/s. TELCO Ltd. The financial arrangement between M/s. TELCO Ltd. and their bankers (HDFC Bank Ltd.) was that the former would pay interest to the bank for any delay of remittances of money by them to the bank. The arrangement was for payment of such interest @ 1.9%. The assessees were not privy to the agreement between their buyer and the bank. What they received from their buyer was only the discounted price of the goods. The question which arises for consideration is whether the interest paid by the buyer to their bankers under the financial arrangement between them, which the assessees had nothing to do with, requires to be included in the assessable value of the goods. We have noticed two Circulars of the Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had nothing to do with the financial arrangement between their buyer and HDFC Bank. They were only concerned with prompt payment of the sale price of the goods supplied by them to M/s. TELCO Ltd. They did not mind who paid it. The buyer's bankers paid the money within 48 hours from the time of delivery of the goods to them by the assessees. There ends the transaction between the assessees and their buyer. If the buyer delays remittance to their bankers under the above scheme, it was for them to pay interest on the moneys. This was precisely what was done by M/s. TELCO Ltd. and their bankers did not confer any monetary benefit on the assessees. Presumably, it was in similar circumstances that the Board clarified the point in the respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
