9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduction of the rule, jurisdiction under the rule can be exercised in respect of that preceding period of five years. Once the rule comes into existence and jurisdiction under the rule is invoked, it has got to cover a period upto five years preceding the date of issue of notice. The Tribunal has endorsed such action of the departmental authorities. The plea of limitation has no force. Appeal dismissed. - 4542 of 1985 - - - Dated:- 18-2-1987 - R.S. Pathak, C.J. and Ranganath Misra, J. [Judgment per : Ranganath Misra, J.]. - This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upholding the decision of the Appellate Col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f determining the assessable value. It is not disputed that from 15.7.1975 the levy price of aluminum has been statutorily fixed at Rs.7062/- per metric tonne. It is the contention of the appellant that on the basis of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules the price of Rs.7062/- should be adopted as being the price of comparable goods and with effect from 1.10.1975 the assessable value should have been fixed under proviso (ii) to Section 4(1)(a) or Section 4(1)(b) of the Act at the same amount. The admitted position is that there has been no sale between the appellant and the customers of the material. The appellant was collecting Rs.600/- per metric tonne as conversion charges and Rs. 60/- per metric ton as handling charges. The dispute in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deliver the same to the customers. The handling charges were intended to cover the appellant's expenses in lifting the ingots. The Tribunals has, therefore, come to the right conclusion in holding that the handling charges represented premanufacturing cost. We agree that the Tribunal came to the appropriate conclusion in holding that the handling charges became a part of the value for computation of duty. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant had suppressed the disclosure of receipt of handling charges and, therefore, the longer period of limitation applied. The same view had been taken by the departmental authorities. We see no justification to take the different view on the facts. 5. The only other submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
