TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the invoices is not legal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal Nos. E/377/2010 - ORDER No. FO/A/77221/2018 - Dated:- 9-7-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri A. Roy, Suptd. (AR) for the Appellant (s) Shri A. Sengupta, Advocate for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per Bench: The facts of the case in brief are that the Respondents have depots in several parts of the country. In the case of sale from Mumbai Depot, the appellant charged an amount @ 2.36% of cum duty price from the buyers as transportation charges but by mistake the said amount in invoice was shown as Depot Charges. Similarly, in the case of sale from Ludhiana Depot, the appellant cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value:- (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2). The provisions of this Section shall not apply in respect of any excisable goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under sub-section (2) of Section 3. (3) For the purpose of this section.- (a) assessee means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent: (b) persons shall be deemed to be related if- (i) they are inter-connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) Amongst them the buyer is a relative an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly payable on such goods.? 6. We find that the lower appellate authority has discussed the issue and passed a detailed order. The relevant Paras of the impugned order are reproduced below:- I have examined the impugned order and Contentions. The Appellant has all along stated that the valuation has been made on the basis of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules read with the CBEC s Circular No. 251/85/96-CX dated 14/10/1996 and 354/81/2000-TRU dated 30/06/2000. At Page-7 of the impugned order, the Joint Commissioner has held that the appellant did not adhere to the provisions of the Rule-7 of the valuation Rule However. In the instant case this shows that the Joint Commissioner has taken the contrary view in the valuation of subject goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Commissioner/CE/KolIV/Adjn/2004 dated 17/09/04 has held as follows: the basic points which is required to be decided, in the instant cases is whether in case of sale through depot the transportation charges from factory gate to depot is includible in the assessable value, secondly, whether the duty has been paid by the notices as claimed by them on the depot price which is inclusive of transportation charges from factory gate to the depot. In Lipi Data System Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 2001 (130) ELT 91 (Tri.-Del) it has been held that whenever the goods manufactured by the appellant at their factory at Udaipur were removed for subsequent clearances from Mumbai, they have to be assessed at the price preval ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the original authority s stand that as per Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, transportation charges may be allowed as deduction from the assessable value only when they are charged to the buyer in addition to the price of the excisable goods and are shown in the Invoices separately. In the present case, the appellant had collected the transportation charges from their customers through debit notes and the same was not reflected in the Invoices. 2.Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, JDR appeared on behalf of the Department. 3.The learned Advocate urged that the lower authority has lost sight of the basic and fundamental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
