TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd partly rejected it. 2.It is against that part of the appeal which was decided against the Revenue and in favour of assessee, the Revenue has filed this reference application calling for the questions proposed for answer by this Court. One of the question that arose before the Tribunal was "whether the fitting of the rubber/plastic ring could be included in the assessable value of the pipes and tubes manufactured by the assessee ?" This issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal by recording the following finding : "Cost of Rubber/Plastic Rings - The end of the pipe at which the socket was not fitted was covered by a rubber or plastic ring to protect the threading during transportation, hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orate General of Supplies and Disposals at the request of the specific customers were not includible in the assessable value when cost of such additional testing/inspecting was being borne by the customers. The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 2465 of 1992 filed by the CCE against the aforesaid Tribunal's decision as reported in the Court Room Highlights at page A-51 in 1992 (62) E.L.T. Thus, we hold that the cost of galvanisation and that of the sockets and the service charges were includible in the value of the pipes and tubes, while the cost of rubber/plastic rings and the inspection charges were not includible in the assessable value of the pipes and tubes." 5.It is against these two findings viz. finding on cost of rubb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies concerned in favour of Revenue. It is only then the question arises about its applicability to a particular fact. Since no such factual finding was recorded in this case like the finding recorded in the case before the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd, supra, and hence, the law explained in paragraph 13 will not apply so far as facts of this case is concerned. 8.We, therefore, find no ground much less a ground to interfere in the order passed calling reference on the question proposed. So far as the other two question are concerned, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- and, therefore we cannot find any fault in those observations. Same is the case with regard to grant of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
