9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Show Cause Notice as indicated in the table below:- SI. No. SCN No. & date Amount of C.E.D. Period 1. MP-13/SCN/ISWP/Telco- III/97/449 dtd. 29.5.97 Rs.8,29,962.91 Dec '96 to March '97 2. MP-13/SCN/ISWP/Telco- III/97/737 dtd. 15.09.97 Rs.36,28,081 April' 97 to July' 97 2.1 Appellant had entered into an agreement with TISCO for conversion of billets into wire rods for job of basis. After during the course of conversion, certain losses, such as burning losses occurred to the extent of 7%. Accordingly, appellants were required to return 90 tonnes of wire rods after conversion against every 100 tonnes of billets provided by TISCO. Whatsoever, waste arises during the course of conversion was also cleared by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value or not rather, he concluded that all the cost must have been included in the assessable value, since it was fixed by the principal, i.e. M/s TISCO. The adjudicating authority did not mention any such instance which could prove that such extra consideration formed part of the assessable value fixed by M/s TISCO. Purely on assumption, he concluded that all such costs were included in the assessable value. There appears no evidence on record to suggest that the same were included in the assessable vale. 8. The adjudicating authority also erred in placing reliance upon the CEGAT decision in the case of Surindra Steel Rolling Mills-Vs-CCE, Chandigarh. In the said decision, it was held that the assessable value included all the cost incur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the appellants. All the components going into the value would have thus formed part of the assessable value for such clearances. It is not the case that job work charges have been suppressed to the extent of the value of waste and scrap in the present case as goods have been cleared on actual value fixed by TISCO. 4.3 Similar view has been held by the Tribunal in case of Surindra Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner, reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 357 (Tri.Del) which has been confirmed by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2008(226)ELT A-182 (P&H). 5.1 We do not find any reason to defer from the said decision. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal. Impugned order is upheld and appeal filed by the Revenue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
