9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reover there was no discrepancy on receipt of the ship in terms of the first MOA - revision of assessable value as per second MOU is not warranted – hence reduction in assessable value is not allowed - C/908/2004 & C/CO/636/2004 - A/974-975/2008-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 2-5-2008 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out to him that in view of the Larger Bench decision, the price originally agreed upon at the time of MOU cannot be revised subsequently. 2. Thereafter the ld. Advocate explained the facts as follows: According to terms of the first MOA, condition No. 12, the vessel is fitted with and be delivered with one Bronze working propeller and no spare propeller and no spare tail shaft, with all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not say that they were not working. It was also noticed that reduction was not quantified and reasons given were not detailed enough and vague. Thus it was found that there was no discrepancy on receipt of the ship in terms of the first MOA. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal in Lucky Steel Industries v. CC Bhavnagar applies to the present case and the revision of assessable value as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
