9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt owns units, at Cannaught Place, Motinagar and Okhla under a common management. The excisable goods were first transferred to these units or to the duty paid godown of the appellant and later sold from there in the course of wholesale trade. The invoices raised from these places for sale revealed collection of certain rental charges and transport charges for the delivery to the buyers, which were not included in the assessable value. Undisputedly, different units to which stocks were transferred belonged to the same entity. 3.The main issue raised in the show cause notice is in connection with the additional charges in the name of transport charges which included rental charges for the bottles in which aerated water was supplied. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch goods in retail. The assumption in the Order-in-Original that three units of the appellant located at different places were related persons appears to be erroneous because admittedly all the three units belonged to the appellant and no other person natural or juristic was involved to bring about any relationship between persons as contemplated by the provision of sub-clause (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, as was applicable at the relevant time. 5.However, the main controversy centres around the question as to whether there was justification for including rental and transport charges in the assessable value of the goods in question. There is no dispute over the fact that the transport charges in question were not in relation to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, it does not follow that value for the purpose of excise changes merely because the definition of the term "place of removal" is extended. It was held that normal price remains the price "at the time of delivery" and "at the place of removal". In cases of "equalised freight" it remains the same as held in UOI v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) and GOI v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). It is not the case of the department before us that different price was charged from different places of removal by the appellant. The material on record indicates that the freight was charged on equalised basis. 6.It has been held by the Supreme Court in UOI v. Bombay Tyre Inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges like rental for cylinders are for ancillary or allied services and that the activity of supply of cylinders was not an activity of manufacturing gas. Therefore, anything charge for supply of cylinders would not be a price for the manufacture of gas. 8.It is, therefore, evident that the transport charges as well as rental charges were both not includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods, in the facts of the present case. Therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn, as was sought to be done by the Appellate Commissioner, from the fact that rental charges were included in the transport charges. The genuineness of rental charges or the transport charges has not been disputed, and, by including rental charges i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 191 (Tri.-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 637 (CEGAT-LB) was justified, and that the cost of transportation under issue was in respect of point up to the place of sale and not beyond the place of sale. The demand in respect of Rs. 26,12,591.74 in respect of transportation charges was, therefore, upheld. The decision in Prabhat Zarda Ltd. rendered by this Tribunal was carried in appeal and the Supreme Court, in its decision reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) allowing the appeal held that the question was covered in Escorts JCB Ltd. (supra) and that the freight charges in respect of sale from the depot would not be includible in the assessable value. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the impugned Order-in-Appeal will hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amounts mentioned therein recovered from them under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as to why penal action under Rule 173Q should not be taken against them. 14.The Commissioner was required to verify the factual position regarding inclusion of cost of packing material in the cost of aerated waters, pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal by its order dated 6-4-99. The Commissioner accordingly took into consideration the break up of cost of production furnished by the Chartered Accountant of the respondent under various heads such as, manufacturing cost, packing cost, over-heads and others, and depreciation. It was held that the details shown in the computation chart tallied with the balance sheet of the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
