TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leable cast iron inserts. It is common ground that these inserts are only used to fasten the rails of a railway line to concrete sleepers, and that the ultimate user of these sleepers is the Indian Railways. The purchasers of these inserts are either the railway themselves or manufacturer of concrete sleepers, who sell them to the railways. It is also not in dispute that in every case, inspection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Manager of the appellant, that the testing and inspection by RITES is in addition to the testing and inspection that the appellant carries out on the goods, and the inspection by RITES is at the instance of the buyer. Although the appellant arranges the inspection, it recovers the charges from the buyer. The railways in turn reimburse the buyers. He cites the decisions of the Tribunal in Shree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal applied the ratio of Shree Pipes Limited v. C.C.E. to say that the charges payable to RITES for testing railway points and crossings manufactured by the appellant before it were not includable in the assessable value because these charges were incurred by the Railways. 4. It is settled law that charges paid for inspection or testing by a third party at the option of the buyer cannot fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in turn reimbursed these charges by Railways. We have to keep in mind that the sleeper manufacturers sell, not inserts themselves, but sleepers, fitted with the inserts. As far as the appellant is concerned, it recovers, in every case, the charges for inspection from its buyers, the Railways or the sleeper manufacturers. The costs incurred for such testing would therefore form part of their value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared to the Department. The representative of the appellant does not deny that the fact of recovery of these charges was not communicated to the Department. No other ground is urged with regard to limitation. In these circumstances, the conclusion of the Commissioner that the extended period would apply does not warrant interference. 7. Appeal dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
