TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or in relation to the manufacture of pipes manufactured by the appellants. The rubber rings is use for jointing of pipes at site which is an activity of laying of pipes, therefore the same cannot be attributed to manufacturing of pipes - cost not includible in the assessable value. Transportation cost - includibility - Held that: - the fact is not under dispute that there is no sale of goods through the depot. The clearance of goods is made from the factory gate of appellant to the pipeline site of the customer - the valuation should be done on the basis of cost of manufacture + notional profit therefore the transportation in such valuation method cannot be included - the cost of transportation given in this case cannot be included. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laying, jointing and hydraulic testing at site of various diameter of PSC pipe line for pure water gravity mains. On the basis of intelligence, gathered by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, it was found that the appellant have undervalued PSC pipes cleared from their factory, in as much as they have not included the cost of rubber rings supplied for jointing of pipe at site, cost of transportation from factory gate up to the delivery site of the project. Written off cost due to theft or any other loss, accordingly the differential duty demand was confirmed by the jurisdiction Commissioner vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order appellant filed the present appeal. 2. None appeared on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asuring 14,145 meters as against the same, NMC has made payment to the appellants to the extent of total of 13,287 meters of pipes as evident from NMC's RA Bill No. 19 and it follows that the pipes in difference though procured at site, was not supplied to NMC, for being defective or damaged during transportation, lowering and laying as per agreement with NMC. The appellants further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has denied the claim of CENVAT credit discussing in para 76 of the Order dated 30.04.2008 on the ground that the clearances of final products were effected prior to Central Excise Registration which is not legal and correct. 3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is not under dispute that there is no sale of goods through the depot. The clearance of goods is made from the factory gate of appellant to the pipeline site of the customer. Moreover when the valuation was accepted by the department as per Central Excise Valuation Rules. According to which the valuation should be done on the basis of cost of manufacture + notional profit therefore the transportation in such valuation method cannot be included, accordingly we hold that the cost of transportation given in this case cannot be included. As regard written off cost on account of theft or other loss, we find that there is no dispute of quantity of pipes cleared by the appellant. Certain quantity of pipe is on account of theft or rejection which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
