TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -valorem rate, has to be taken as the value of the goods in the form in which the same had been cleared at the time of removal and since in this case, it is the reels which had been cleared from the factory on payment of duty, which subsequently after being cut into sheets were sold from the depot, it is the value of the reels which has to be adopted for charging duty and the cost of transportation and insurance from factory gate to the cutting would not be includable in the assessable value. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1219/2012-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 263/2016-CHD - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate- for the appellant Shri M. R. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 31/1/12 against which this appeal alongwith stay application have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the same issue came up before the Tribunal in respect of earlier period in the appellant s own case, wherein the Tribunal rejected the plea of the department. That matter was challenged by the department in the Hon ble Supreme Court. Because of pendency of the appeal against that order in the Hon ble Supreme Court, the adjudication of the instant show cause notices was kept in abeyance awaiting the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared from the factory to the cutting centres for cutting them into sheets which were thereafter sent to depot from where the same were sold. On this issue, in the appellant s case for the earlier period, the Tribunal vide order dated 21/4/11 reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T. 268 (Tri.-Del.) had, relying upon the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Union of India vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C) held that value of the goods, when the duty on the same is chargeable at an ad-valorem rate, has to be taken as the value of the goods in the form in which the same had been cleared at the time of removal and since in this case, it is the reels which had been cleared from the factory on payment of duty, which subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
