9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) in terms of the purchase order. Thereafter the BSNL has extended the delivery period of the goods up to 14-8-01 with damaged charges in the event of late supply of goods. It is also part of contract that the supply of goods shall be at provisional unit price @ 90% of the price indicated in the purchase order and the sale is subject to adjustment in the finalisation of rate of goods by BSNL. The respondent cleared the goods showing payment of duty on the contract price. Subsequently, the price of the goods were finalized by taking into consideration the liquidating damage charges. The respondent filed refund claim on the ground that the transaction value was lower than the contract price and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the Show Cause Notice that party received payment on lower side. Once it is not in dispute that party did not receive an amount of Rs. 66,25,632.00 from BSNL for supplies made, it is clear that duty involved therein amounting to Rs. 9,10,911.00 has not been paid by BSNL to the Appellants. Therefore, the Appellants have proved beyond doubt that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer". 3. This order is under challenge. The contention of the Revenue is that the deductions made on account of charges for liquidated damages have no relation with the price of the goods. It is a penal clause in the purchase order for not meeting the delivery schedule. The liquidated damage charges are not a permissible deduction for arriving at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g assessment in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared by the manufacturer. The decisions relied upon by the Revenue are that period prior to the amendment when wholesale price was the basis for assessment of the goods manufactured. We find that the case of the United Telecom Ltd. (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Tribunal held as unde: "5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the context of old Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Calicut v. BPL Telecom - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 35 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that liquidated damages for delayed supply of goods is not permissible deduction from the assessable value. In our view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
