TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they originate from the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat and the issue involved is identical. 2. The appellants are a group of companies engaged in the manufacture of Texturised yarn. The combined office premises of all of them were visited by the officers on 28th March, 1997 and various statutory records as also private records maintained by them were scrutinized. The Revenue entertained a plea that the value as shown in the central excise invoices, on which duty was being paid by the appellants was on the lower side than the value as reflected in the commercial invoices/bills raised by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any allegations that such extra freight was towards the value of the goods. Inasmuch as in the present case, there is no such allegation, we agree with the ld. Advocate that there is no warrant for inclusion of extra freight charges in the assessable value. We also find favour with the ld. Advocate s contention that the Commissioner in the impugned order has made out a totally new case by observing that the freight expenses might be towards bringing raw material in the factory, whereas there was no such allegation in the show cause notice. In view of the above, we find that the said extra freight charges recovered by the appellant cannot be held to be part of the assessable value. 4. The second disputed issue relates to as to whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly no difference in the computer booking order sheets value and the commercial invoices. The Commissioner has only gone by statement, which is against the documentary evidences and false nature of such statement is proved by comparison of entries. He further submits that each invoice shows deniers and other specifications and is comparable. 5.2 In view of the above statement made by the ld. Advocate, we would like the Commissioner to compare the two entries and adjudicate on this issue afresh. 6. It has further been brought to our notice that the duty demand against M/s. Deekeen Polyester Pvt. Ltd. has been confirmed as Rs. 12,65,542/- on the differential assessable value of Rs. 4,64,462/-, which on the face of it, is erroneous. By appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall not be added in the assessable value; (ii) brokerage given to agents is to form part of the assessable value; (iii) computer booking order sheets and commercial invoices to be compared in the light of the statement made by the ld. Advocate that they are identical; (iv) the typographical mistake in the order as regards the confirmation of duty of Rs. 12 lakhs (appx.) as against duty of Rs. 2 lakhs to be rectified; (v) the entire realization to be treated as cum-duty price and the benefit of the deduction of duty to be extended to the appellant. 9. Imposition of penalty to be decided afresh. 10. All the appeals are disposed of in the above manner. (Pronounced in Court on 10-12-2007) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
