9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant alleging that they had not included the transportation charges from depot to place of delivery under Rule 5 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. After due process of law, the original authority vide Order-in-Original No.3/2002 confirmed the duty liability. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same against which the appellant approached the Tribunal. Vide Final Order dated 25.8.2004, the Tribunal remanded the matter directing for fresh decision after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to produce evidences showing whether freight had been charged to buyers under Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2002. In denovo adjudication, vide Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2005, the adjudicating authority disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oval. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhopal Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal - 2010 (253) ELT 681 and submitted that the Tribunal had held the said issue in favour of the assessee. 4. The learned AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant having not produced documentary proof for incurring the transportation cost, cannot claim deduction from the assessable value. 5. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 6. We have perused the Order-in-Original dated 23.1.2003 referred by the counsel for appellant. In para 17, the adjudicating authority has observed as follows:- "In the instant case, the assessee claims that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the place of removal is other than the factory gate, is includible in the assessable value, which in any case, is a natural corollary of the provisions of Section 4(1)(a), the main difference between the Rule 5, as it stood during the period from 1-7-2000 to 28-2-2003 and as it stood w.e.f. 1-3-2003 is that the Rule 5 of the later period specifically provides for deduction of cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery even when it is charged on averaged basis. In view of this, for the period from 1-3-03 to 1-8-03, the cost of freight from the place of removal to the place of delivery, charged on averaged basis is excludible from the assessable value if it has been calculated in accordance with the generally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible even when such freight is charged on averaged/equalized basis. In fact, same view has been taken by this Tribunal in case of CCE, Bhopal v. Laxmi Engineering reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 342 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it was held that transport charges will not be includible in the assessable value when the freight from the place of removal to the place of delivery is charged on equalized basis as Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 nowhere provides that deduction of freight will be available only if charged on actual basis." [Emphasis supplied] Further, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Engineering - 2005 (179) ELT 342 (Tri. Delhi), a similar view was taken for the transportation cost incurred by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
