M/S. Taher Ali Industries & Projects (P) ... vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ...
- CitationAppeal No.61/2004 (TRY)(ADK), dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs a
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Transport charges collected separately by the assessee are not includible in the assessable value where there is no material to show that the separate collection was an arrangement designed to depress the assessable value to the prejudice of Revenue, and where no examination of the agreement between the parties as to the point of delivery has been undertaken by the adjudicating authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.61/2004 (TRY)(ADK), dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
M/s. TAHER ALI INDUSTRIES & PROJECTS (P) LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant None
For the Respondent Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honbe Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of hearing/decision 06-04-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40367 / 2015
Per D.N. Panda:
None present for the appellant. Appellant has filed a written submission praying for disposal of the appeal.
2. The moot question in this appeal is whether transport charges collected separately by appellant shall be includible in the assessable value. There is no material on record to suggest that the exclusion was by any arrangement made by the assessee to cause prejudice to Revenue. There is also no examination of any agreement between the parties as to the delivery of the goods at any point by the Authority below. Record shows that the appellant charged transport charge separately along with laying, jointing and testing activity carried out using the excisable goods. Therefore, in absence of any material to suggest that price was separated with a view to depress the assessable value, there should be interference to revert the Adjudication order. Accordingly, the Adjudication order is set aside and appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 07-04-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 06.04.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 07.04.2015
Fair Order Typing 7.04.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 09.04.2015
4 E/00027/2005
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free