TMI Blog1977 (3) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment included the element of freight @ 30 paise per crate for carting their goods to the retailers and @ 70 paise per crate for out stations and in view of the Supreme Court s judgment in Voltas case, the assessable value of their products should have been exclusive of freight expenses. These refund claims of the appellants were rejected by the Asstt. Collector as time-barred under rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asstt. Collector has also observed in the order that the prices in the relevant period for which the refund was claimed included an element of freight, which was not shown separately in the invoices and, therefore, it was clear that in the relevant period the appellants had adopted a pattern of equalised freight, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants have also given break-up of transportation/distribution charges as below :- (a) Selling cost and selling profits. (b) Other post manufacturing but pre-delivery expenses from the factory gate to the customers premises for home delivery and un-loading charges of filled stock at the Customers premises. (c) Post-delivery expenses incurred for and on behalf of customers. They have argued that Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act does not authorise the Central Excise Officer to collect the Central Excise duty as post-manufacturing expenses especially on the post delivery expenses. Reliance has been placed on a number of judgments of the Supreme Court and of some High Courts. 3. I have considered the submissions ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnal etc. The above appealable order dated 31-3-1970 of the Superintendent has thus dealt with the letter dated the 6th March, 1970 of the appellants. The letter dated the 7th March, 1970 of the appellants also involves the same issue. In their letter dated 10-3-1970 the appellants stated that the price fixed w.e.f. 1-3-1970 was inclusive of distribution charges and may be considered as provisional. The provisional nature of the above price disappeared with the issue of the above appealable order dated 31-3-1970 by the Superintendent MOR Vl, Delhi. No appeal against the above order of the Superintendent was filed. Therefore. the claim of the appellants that their representation for provisional assessment was still alive is one which canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nses, I observe that the error of law is not manifest on the face of it in this case because from the very beginning there were two interpretations on the inclusion of post manufacturing charges in the assessable value and yet the appellants went on paying duty without any protest. This was evidently a payment of duty through in-advertence or error within the frame work of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and not under a mistake of law particularly when they did so without any protest and without even filing any appeal against the order dated 31-3-1976 of Supdt, MOR Vl Delhi. I, therefore reject this plea or mistake of law. 7. The facts and the circumstances in the subject appeal are identical and I, therefore, hold that the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
