TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nership firm of M/s. Miracle Trading Co. is a proxy with no separate entity. Neither is any case made out that part of the price of the goods is being realised by the transporting company for the benefit of the appellant company. Therefore in the facts of the case we do not see any merit in the orders of the lower authorities and we are in agreement with the argument of the appellants that the proceeds realised by M/s. Miracle Carrier and Trading Co. towards transportation of the goods will not form part of the assessable value of the goods cleared by appellants - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/600-603/2005 and E/396 and 947/2006 - Final Order Nos. A/140-145/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 7-2-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri Mathew John ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 11AC of the Act. In the Show Cause Notice for the period April, 1997 to August, 2001 there was a proposal to impose penalty on Shri Abhay P Shah, Director of M/s. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. In adjudication proceedings the duties demand for all five periods were confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on Shri Abhay P. Shah. There are six appeals filed against the said orders five of them filed by M/s. Prem Cables Pvt. Ltd. and one appeal filed by Shri Abhay P. Shah. 2. On appeal filed with the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants did not get any relief and aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) the present appeals before the Tribunal have been filed. The submission of the appellants is that in their cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the premises of the electricity boards and consequently such places are the places of removal for the impugned goods and as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the assessable value is the price for delivery at the place of removal and that will include freight from factory to place of removal. 4. We have considered arguments on both the sides and the decisions given by the Apex court in the matter. In the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. (supra) it has been held by Hon ble Apex Court that the place of removal in such cases is the factory gate and not the place at which goods are delivered. It has also been categorically ruled by the Apex Court that the cost of transportation from the factory gate to the premises of the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
