TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e value and the duty on the impugned goods requires to be re-calculated accordingly - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. E/3/08 - FO/A/76107/2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) And SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) NONE for the Appellant (s) Shri H.S. Abedin, AC(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per CORAM. When the case was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice. No request for adjournment has been received. It is seen from the records that the case has been listed on board at regular intervals but, the appellants have not appeared. Since the matter is an old one, pertaining to the year 2008, the same is taken up for disposal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in the assessable value and as such they have inflated the transaction value and paid higher duty. Consequently the appellants have taken higher refund amount under Notification No.32/1999-CE (supra) and their customers have also taken higher amount of credit against the impugned goods supplied by the appellants. 5. We find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong Vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. [2009 (243) E.L.T. 307 (Tri.-Kol.)], where the appeal of the Revenue was allowed in an identical situation. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- 5. After hearing arguments from both sides and perusal of cited case laws, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the freight and insurance charges in the assessable value cannot be accepted. The reliance on the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. (cited supra) is also misplaced. The Tribunal in the case of Jindal (India) Ltd. merely holds that where transport charges are shown separately, the same cannot be included in the assessable value. Such a decision is not an authority to include transportation charge in the assessable value, where it is not shown separately. We are also of the view that the reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the Respondents on- (i) Yamaha Motors India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi-IV - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 677 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.); (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
