9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipts do not form part of their income and thus this is not an additional consideration. This is also relevant to observe that RITES raised the bills to the Appellant charging Inspection charges as per agreement amongst RITES, the Appellant and the customer. This is variably from the records that the Inspection charges were paid to RITES by the Appellant on behalf of their customers and the same amount was reimbursed by the customers and there is no difference between the amount paid and the reimbursed receipts. Both the amounts are matching.' As the issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the appellant s own case for an earlier period, therefore, following the same decision, the appellant is not liable to pay duty on accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The inspection was done at the instance of the buyer. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 06.01.2010 was issued to the appellant for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009 proposing demand of duty of an amount of Rs.1,27,343/- along with interest and penalty. 4. The matter was adjudicated and the demand of duty along with interest was confirmed by the ld. adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. AC/CTC/CTC-II/84/2010 dated 19.10.2010 and penalty equivalent to the amount of duty confirmed was also imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2012 has upheld the confirmation of demands. Aggrieved from the said order, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot form part of their income and thus this is not an additional consideration. This is also relevant to observe that RITES raised the bills to the Appellant charging Inspection charges as per agreement amongst RITES, the Appellant and the customer. This is variably from the records that the Inspection charges were paid to RITES by the Appellant on behalf of their customers and the same amount was reimbursed by the customers and there is no difference between the amount paid and the reimbursed receipts. Both the amounts are matching. The Appellants have relied upon the following decisions in support of their grounds of appeal:- (i) Commissioner Vs. Johnson Pumps (I) Ltd. : 2010 (251) ELT 560 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (ii) Lubi Submersible Ltd. : 2015 (31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
