9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of Flow Meters and are required to confine to standards specified in Schedule VII and VIII of the Standards of Weights & Measures Act, 1976. As per this Act any instrument that is used for measuring/weighment, has to be stamped for its quality/accuracy by the Legal metrology Department, prior to installation and appropriate charges for the same has to be paid to them. According to department the appellant collected stamping charges from the customers for stamping of their products and also collected certain amount in the guise of stamping charges which they have not paid to the Metrology Department. In as much as the appellant had excluded these stamping charges from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Further, the appellants have started paying service tax from February 2005 on such charges. That therefore the amounts collected are not exigible to duty. He also submitted that for the same reason extended period cannot be invoked. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the stamping charges will form part of the transaction value only if it is collected as part and parcel of the price charged for the weight and measure. If stamping charges are not collected as price and separately billed on reimbursable basis same cannot form part of the transaction value. 4. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, appearing for Revenue submitted that as per Section 4 any amount charged apart from price, that the buyer is liable to pay to or on behalf of the manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in order to make the goods marketable it is necessary to verify and stamp weights and measures. Rules are provided for weights and measures sold inter-state. The definition of weights and measures include instruments also. Therefore the contention of the appellants that fee/charges collected for verification and stamping is not to be included in the assessable value does not find favour with us. The issue on merits is held against the appellants. 6.4 The Ld. Counsel has also argued on the ground of limitation. The department issued SCN dated 07.12.2006 which was withdrawn and subsequent SCN dated 21.12.2006 was issued. The period involved in both SCN was from March 2002 to September 2006. In the earlier SCN an amount of Rs. 6,23,254/- be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
