TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T)]. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of Electric Fans recovered certain amounts towards transit risk insurance from their customers during the period 17-3-1985 to 31-7-1987. Following a demand-cum-show cause notice issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by the Assistant Collector and contended that even though the respondents were collecting Transit Risk Insurance charges in respect of all goods despatched to outstation parties, they were required to make payments in very few cases on account of transit cover provided to their buyers. He contended that the respondents were not entitled to claim the deduction of transit risk insuranc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not relevant, amounts recovered to cover the transit risk, being in the nature of post-clearance charges would not form a part of the assessable value. He added that there was no force at all in argument advanced by the lower authorities that the respondents not being an Insurance Company the charges on account of transit risk insurance would form a part of the assessable value. He stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a part of the assessable value. We find that this issue was examined by the Tribunal on two occasions while considering the appeals filed by M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd., Hyderabad and by Order Nos. 136-137/87-A dated 19-2-1987 and E/1084 to 1086/90-A dated 13-7-1990 the Tribunal held that the amount of 1% recovery by the assessee from their customers on account of breakage of asb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th transit insurance which had been accepted as a permissible deduction, being in the nature of cost of transportation, in terms of the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Bombay Tyre International [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (SC)] and Madras Rubber Factory [1987 (27) E.L.T. 553 (SC)]. The learned representative of the department had nothing to say. 5. Following the ratio of the aforesaid two Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
