9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a view to reduce the assessable value – moreover, appellant actually paid more transportation charges to the transporters than what they actually collected as freight at flat rate from buyer – commissioner is not justified in disallowing abatement - E/4505/2004 - 527/2008-EX/(PB), - Dated:- 22-7-2008 - S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) and D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri Atul Gupta, C.S., for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, held that freight element cannot be abated and he demanded differential duty of Rs. 49,712/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the original authority 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Commissioner's (Appeals) order is erroneous. He has not taken into account the submissions that they paid more transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own that the amount of freight was inflated with a view to reduce the assessable value. On the other hand, there was a submission by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the actual freight incurred was more than the overall amount collected from the buyers and in the circumstances, we feel that the appellant has made out a case for our interference. 7. We set aside the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
