2002 (6) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion in this appeal is the liability to inclusion in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant supplied to some customers on job work, of the cost of inspection of these goods carried out on behalf of these customers by third party. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has refused to accept the submission made by the appellant before him that these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of this letter, which the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon, provides: "5. After galvanization of the structures the same have to be kept in convenient lots to facilitate inspection by our quality control representatives as well as our clients representative." 4. The appellant points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked the condition 14 contained in the letter which reads: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ial reality. No manufacturer would be so careless as to take such a stand. In any event, if the department sought to include the charges on account of third party inspection to the value, it was up to it to prove that there was no prior inspection. This, in our view, has not been done. 6. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X