9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per: Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned JDR Shri R.S. Srova appearing for the Revenue. The respondent has made a request for adjournment. 2. We find that the issue is decided by various decisions of the Tribunal as confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of his order as under: "I further find that under erstwhile Section 4, which existing prior to 1-7-2000 (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Collector. of C.E., Jaipur v. M/s. CIMMCO Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 167 (S.C.) has upheld the Tribunal Order Nos. 296-301/94-A, dated 19-10-94 reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 687 (Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal under erstwhile Section 4 of the Act in following cases has held that cost of additional inspection charges borne by the customers carried out by a third party, is not includible in the assessable value. (i) M/s. Choksi Tube Co. Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad, 2003 (153) E.L.T. 178 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) M/s. Sunrise Structurals & Engg. P. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.-Mumbai) (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clarified that the concept of new transaction value under Section 4 has same scope as that of old Section 4 of the Act and Valuation Rules. Hence, respectfully following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that the third party's inspection charges initially paid by the appellants and subsequently reimbursed by the buyers is not includible in the assessable value of the goods. I, therefore, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
