9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is that the Settlement Commission, without considering all the relevant documents pertaining to their claim regarding deduction of freight, which documents had been seized by the Excise Authorities and were in their possession, gave a finding that it was not possible to accept any deduction towards freight from the assessable value as claimed by the petitioners. 4. The finding of the Settlement Commission as regards the petitioners' claim regarding freight is contained in paragraph 9.2 of the impugned order and reads as follows :- "9.2 Another major claim is regarding the freight. Here also, we find that the goods, were sold at the factory gate. Secondly, the documents indicated that the goods were sold on freight to pay basis. In othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out in paragraph 12.3 of the order. (f) On 9-5-2006 the petitioners filed a statement showing the calculation as required and also containing their submission. (g) On 30-5-2006 the petitioners received a final order dated 5-5-2006 passed by the Settlement Commission dismissing the application on the ground that the affidavit has not been filed by the petitioners as required by the interim order dated 16-3-2006. (h) On 4-10-2006 the petitioners filed a Writ petition impugning the order of the Settlement Commission dated 5-5-2006 and the High Court vide its order dated 10-4-2006 directed the Settlement Commission to re-hear the petitioners' application on merits. (i) On 6-6-2007 the Settlement Commission passed the impugned order as afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price which is the first item in column-1 was the sale price-cum-freight and it was in these circumstances, that the freight was shown as a deduction in the said documents. Counsel for the petitioners states that it was never their case that they had actually paid the freight. They admit the fact that freight was actually paid by the customers. Their contention is however, that in the particular system of accounting that they follow, in Exhibit-1 the sale price was taken as sale price-cum-freight. However, in the customers' account which was, maintained separately and which is annexed to the affidavit-in-reply at Exhibit-2, credit was given to the customers in respect of the freight amount. Their contention was that if the documents at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
