1987 (4) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed deduction from the sale price so as to arrive at the assessable value of the goods which are industrial oxygen gas and acetylene gas sold in cylinders. In respect of the goods, there was a rate contract at the relevant time. 3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise ordered the inclusion of these charges in the price, in order to arrive at the assessable price. he did note that according to Section 4(2) the cost of transportation from the place of delivery shall be excluded from such price (where, in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal). 4. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ick up cylinders at the factory gate. The ex-factory price i.e. to say the factory gate price was available and the genuineness of the same was never questioned by the department according to the ld. Consultant, Shri Jain relied on two Judgments in support of his argument; in Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India and Others [reported in 1986(26)-E.L.T.-676 (Bombay)]; and Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International (reported in 1983-E.L.T. 1896 Supreme Court). He also referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in Mecneill Magor Ltd., Calcutta v. C.C.E., Calcutta [reported in 1986(25)-E.L.T.-556] and submitted that even though loading of filled gas cylinders was done inside the factory, the charges incurred therefor included not only the ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r sale, has not been contradicted. The buyers in this case, a Govt. Deptt. are not related persons. The Hon ble Supreme Court in their Judgment in Union of India and Others etc. etc. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. etc. etc. 1983-E.L.T.-1896(SC) held cost of transportation had to be excluded for the purpose of arriving at assessable value and that such cost is excluded when charged on average basis. Therefore prima facie the appellants arguments are valid insofar as transportation charges are concerned. 9. In this view, the delivery and collection charges incurred by the appellants which have nothing to do with the manufacture of gas have to be excluded. Insofar as loading charges are concerned, we accept the argument of the Ld. S.D.R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X