9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs. 6,81,428/- with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. 2. The respondent is manufacturer of CTD bars falling under chapter sub-heading 7214.90 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period January, 2001 to 31-3-2003, the appellant had supplied goods to their customer and charged transportation charges over and above the price of the goods mentioned in the respective invoices. 3. The department was of the view that the transportation cost/freight charges from the place of removal to the place of delivery ought to have been included in the value of the goods for assessing the excise duty payable. Thus, a show cause notice dated 3-11-2004 was served upon the respondent. Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.T. 13 (S.C.)] and the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. [2002 (146) E.L.T. 31 (S.C.)] ignoring that those cases pertain to the period prior to 1-7-2000 when there was no concept of transaction value. It is further contended that in terms of the Board Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 1-7-2002 the deduction of transport charges is admissible provided the transport charges are shown separately in the invoices. Whereas in the instant case there is no mention of transport charges in the invoices. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellants it is necessary to have a look at Section 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of determining the value of the excisable goods.] 7. On bare reading of Section 4(1)(a) it is apparent where the assessee and the buyers are not related party and the excisable goods are sold by the assessee for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the price, if it is sole consideration for the sale shall be the transaction value for the purpose of excise. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the respondent-assessee and the customer to whom the goods were sold were related parties. On perusal of the order-in-original and the impugned order it transpires that as per the copies of invoices produced before the authorities the sale was at the factory gate and the price charged was as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
