9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary The appellant is a manufacturer of cotton and synthetic yarn classifiable under Chapter 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. The fact of the case in brief is that during the period January 2001 to October 2004 the appellant was operating through consignments agents and as such they transferred the excisable goods from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther charges in the assessable value. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 19,505/-, additional excise duty of Rs. 2,803/- alongwith interest and also appropriated the amount paid by the appellant and also imposed penalty. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before this tribunal. 2. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same is evident from statutory returns and documents regularly filed. 4. Ld. D.R. for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhat Zarda Factory Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Anr. [2003(130) STC (96)] have held that freight charges are to be included in the assessable value up to the sale depot for the purposes of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
