TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. The present appeal is against the Orders passed by the authorities below confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,955.00 and imposing personal penalty of Rs. 6000.00 under the provisions of Rule 173Q. 2. The appellants are the manufacturer of jute goods and have their factory at Bally, Howrah. The appellants entered into Transferable Specific Delivery Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory to the delivery point and as such, no lorry hire charges were borne by the appellants. However, the appellants deducted the equalised freight charges based upon the circulars issued by the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Limited, Calcutta from the total contracted price with their customers so as to arrive at the net amount chargeable from their buyers. The duty was accordingly paid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority. Hence the present appeal. 4. We have heard Shri D.K. Saha, learned Consultant appearing for the appellants and Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR for the Revenue. 5. It is seen that in cases where the appellants have themselves delivered the goods to the railway heads and have deducted the equalised lorry higher (sic) charges, the Revenue has no objection to the deducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses, the buyers are taking the goods from the factory gate and themselves arranging the transportation, the net amount chargeable from the buyers has been arrived at by the appellants by again deducting Rs. 10.00 from Rs. 100.00 i.e. the contracted price. In nutshell, they have received only Rs. 90.00 from their customers. Demand of duty on Rs. 10.00 would amount to addition of transportation char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
